Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Canon of Scripture
Fisheaters.com ^ | not given | Fisheaters.com

Posted on 06/16/2013 3:15:37 PM PDT by Salvation

The Canon of Scripture


The Four Evangelists, by Rubens

 

Real Audio Lessons on this Topic

 
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?


Background

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).



It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical"). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.


So what happened?

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent4), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.


The Council of Jamnia?

Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The "Council of Jamnia" (also called "Jabneh" or "Javneh") is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, "council" consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees' vision of "Jewry" was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that "Nazarenes" (i.e., "Christians", who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel's Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila -- but one without the ancient Septuagint's language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book "had" to have been written in Hebrew to be "Biblical" wasn't the issue.

Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead -- the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")


And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I've actually read at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the Council of Jamnia's decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).


Conclusion

Me, I will trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul.

But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon (see footnotes), especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!). The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Check here for a look at the Catholic canon.
 

Footnotes
1 Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

2 The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."


3 By the way, "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. I mention this because, apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

In any case, the Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" (i.e., the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn't true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


4 Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.


5 There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others.


 


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Scripture mentioned in the above article

Tobit 12:15
I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One. [see Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 below]

2 Maccabees 7:29
[A mother speaking to her son:] Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. [see Hebrews 11:35 below]

2 Maccabees 12:44
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. [see 1 Corinthians 15:29 below]

2 Maccabees 15:14
And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah [bodily dead], the prophet of God."

1 Corinthians 15:29
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [see 2 Maccabees 12:44 above]

Hebrews 11:35
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection. [see 2 Maccabees 7:29 above]

Revelation 1:4
...Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne. [see Tobit 12:15 above]

Revelation 8:3-4
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. [see Tobit 12:15 above]


Further Reading

Canon of the Old Testament


1 posted on 06/16/2013 3:15:37 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Religion Moderator

Religion Moderator,
How can you post an Ecumenical Thread that contains oppositional language and attacks in the main article?

For example, this quote:

“In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

I suggest the Ecumenical tag be removed or the thread removed. People should follow the rules on the Religion Moderator home page...


2 posted on 06/16/2013 3:18:30 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

Canon of Scripture Ping!


3 posted on 06/16/2013 3:25:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Facts are facts.


4 posted on 06/16/2013 3:43:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Salvation
I see what you mean ~ but it may not be possible to find an article that covers this particular topic WITHOUT assorted bromides and insults.

it is interesting ~ can't say it's not ~

Salvation, BTW, our religion moderator may not be prepared for this one.

5 posted on 06/16/2013 3:45:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
From the Religion Moderator's home page:

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

Religion Moderator - if someone cannot post anything that provokes hostility, how can you post a hostile article that is antagonistic and then discuss it without being labeled antagonistic?

6 posted on 06/16/2013 3:51:10 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; aMorePerfectUnion

“Facts are facts.”

Just because the Roman Church says so does not make it fact.


7 posted on 06/16/2013 3:52:21 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I love this stuff. It’s a spectator sport for me but I’m happy that there are people at work figuring it out.


8 posted on 06/16/2013 3:55:10 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

For example, the claim that the “Jewish canon” was determined at “Jamnia” is at very best, a “hypothetical”. It’s a Roman Catholic fantasy or worse.


9 posted on 06/16/2013 3:56:43 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Religion Moderator
"and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

Agree. This is not antagonistic language? Really?

10 posted on 06/16/2013 4:06:36 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?

Notice the assumption that got slipped in.

11 posted on 06/16/2013 4:26:46 PM PDT by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What is the difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books?


12 posted on 06/16/2013 4:34:40 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2973419/posts We actually covered some of this same material last year ~ Has there been a change in the ECUMENTAL rules? I’ve read them here, and in the reference above, and they seem different.


13 posted on 06/16/2013 4:47:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Roman Catholic mythology ...


14 posted on 06/16/2013 4:52:17 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Your opinion and flame bait.


15 posted on 06/16/2013 5:16:50 PM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
"How can you post an Ecumenical Thread that contains oppositional language and attacks in the main article?

For example, this quote:

“In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

I don't see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).

In fact the historical record is clear: Martin Luther suffered from terrible scrupulosity-- the belief that he could never be good enough to go to heaven. His personal solution to the problem was to invent the "faith alone" doctrine which is contradictory to the Scriptures and was never believed by any Christian in the previous 1500 years of Christianity. He then tried to promote his personal solutions into doctrine. When the Church didn't go along, he rebelled. Simple as that. As someone has already said, facts is facts.

16 posted on 06/16/2013 5:16:55 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"Roman Catholic mythology ..."

Well then...I guess that settles it. ;)

17 posted on 06/16/2013 5:19:51 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Religion Moderator

“I don’t see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).”

I did not say it was an attack on a FReeper. It is an attack on one side of an ecumenical discussion in the very article by the other side. In other words, on a thread that prohibits antagonism, the article stacks the deck, skirting the historic rules and practices of ecumenical threads.

Historically, FreeRepublic Religion Forum rules and moderator decisions have thrown out antagonistic articles when posted as ecumenical. I’m asking for a response from the RM - and I accept his or her decision.

Even your statement that I am responding to is antagonistic toward one side and is by definition, not ecumenical and should be removed by the RM.


18 posted on 06/16/2013 5:21:41 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
"For example, the claim that the “Jewish canon” was determined at “Jamnia” is at very best, a “hypothetical”. It’s a Roman Catholic fantasy or worse."

Note that the article contains the following footnote:

5 There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others

The point is that the Jewish canon was not fixed until well into the Christian area--possibly even after the Christian canon (consisting of all 74 books) was fixed in the 4th century. At Jamnia, the Jews there were mostly concerned with identifying and rejecting what was NOT Scripture-- including some writings that are now part of the New Testament. The Christian Church, already in existence, could not be bound by Jewish teaching authority.

19 posted on 06/16/2013 5:31:53 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The truth is: the position put out by your religion on its canon is completely false...Your earliest church fathers disagree with your religion’s current position...

So in the spirit of ecumenicism, I would encourage you to study the earliest church fathers to find more accurate information so that we all could agree...


20 posted on 06/16/2013 5:33:15 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings — and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.”


This is just an assumption based on evidence that doesn’t actually exist. Only the Books of Moses were translated by the “70” translators and made up the LXX originally (hence the name, LXX, “the seventy”). At least, so goes the legend, and that’s all it really is. No one knows when the Apocrypha, some of which was originally written in Greek in the first place, were translated into Greek. In fact, the apocrypha were translated and retranslated multiple times, and we do not know who did this or if those who did them even believed that these were inspired scripture.

The assertion that the Apostles must have endorsed the apocrypha is based on the idea that they exist as naturally combined with the rest of the Greek Old Testament. But this is merely an assumption based on Christian copies of the LXX which don’t even include all the same books that the RCC includes today, or sometimes holds extra, for example 3-4 Maccabees, the Shepard of Hermes, or The Epistle of Barnabas.

The Jewish position is, instead, given by Josephus when he explains that these books were not considered to be on par with scripture since they were written during the period when the succession of the Prophets failed.

“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” ... “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

(The Jews combined books, just as the Prophet books all lumped into one, 1 and 2 Kings as one book, etc, corresponding to the 22 letters of their alphabet.)

The Babylonian Talmud also does not mention the apocrypha, but only the standard Old Testament scriptures:

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Babylonian_Talmud_Bava_Batra_14b-15a:_The_Order_of_Scripture

And, to top it all off, the inclusion of all sorts of books in various Christian copies of the LXX does not imply that they were all considered equal or even divine. For example, “Pope” Gregory the first mentions this when quoting Maccabees:

“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.

Notice how he mentions that they are put forward not for the “confirmation of the faith,” but for “edification of the faithful.” This same idea is repeated by many authors:

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine.” (Rufinus of Aquileia, Exposition of the Creed)

Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

I’ll also add one final point, that is, that the apocrypha usually expose themselves as not being inspired scripture. Judith, for example, says that Nebuchadnezzer is King of the Assyrians, which is wrong, amongst many other historical and geographical errors. Tobit features an “Angel of the Lord” teaching witchcraft. Maccabees apologizes for possibly containing errors, since he wrote it to the best of his ability. So does Sirach.

Thus, the assertions by this article are just that... assertions, but have no connection to the historical reality of the matter.


21 posted on 06/16/2013 5:35:04 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

When people start cutting and pasting large blocks of context-free quotations on a thread that no one will read instead of discussing the issue person to person, that’s when people stop listening. It’s main effect is to serve as a conversation stopper. In that, you have succeeded.


22 posted on 06/16/2013 5:43:42 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fidelis

“When people start cutting and pasting large blocks of context-free quotations on a thread that no one will read instead of discussing the issue person to person,”


You’re free to dismiss them, but if you want to talk about it “person to person” you’ll address the evidence that’s against you.


23 posted on 06/16/2013 5:51:10 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fidelis

Did everyone miss this line?

**the Protestant “Reformers” decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead — the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the “Nazarenes” of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb and lying to the world!**


24 posted on 06/16/2013 5:59:54 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea; jjotto; Lee N. Field; Mr Rogers; dartuser

The problem with your assertion is it is not just the Latin church saying this.

The longer canon of Scripture is not just used by the Latins (as an Orthodox Christian, I deny their claim to catholicity, will allow them a claim to Romanness since they got the original capital, while we got the Empire until it fell, but prefer, after the manner of the Father at the time of the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church, to call them Latins), but by Orthodox Christians and most of the Monophysites (Copts, Jacobites and Armenians) — the Ethiopians having an even longer canon.

I do not know what account the Copts give of the fixing of the canon of Scripture, but the account we Orthodox give is this: a local council of at Carthage in, I believe 419, set forth in one of its canons a list of the books to be read in the Churches containing the universally agreed New Testament Scriptures and the books of the LXX as the Scriptures of the Old Testament. (I note at this point, the council which took place within the Patriarchate of Rome receive a Papal assent — the Latins’ with their theory of papal power regard this as having fixed the canon, but for us Orthodox, at this point, it was a purely local decision binding on at most the Patriarchate of Rome, perhaps only the local church of Carthage, and subject to review or revision by the Church as a whole.)

This local decision was explicitly given universal force throughout the Church by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in, if I recall correctly, 681 — Westerners often call the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council the “Quinsext Council” — which, in one of its canons, specifically directed that the canons of a list of local councils including Carthage be received throughout the Church. Most Orthodox hold that this is the action which fixed the canon of Scripture, though some hold that a canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) which makes reference to “the ancient canons” had the same force — I am dubious that the canons of a council held a mere 32 years earlier would be regarded as “ancient”.

To Mr Rogers’ question: “Apocrypha” is what protestants call the books, “deuterocanonicals” are what Latins call them. We Orthodox, unless under Western influence, just call them books of the Old Testament.

To jjotto: No, while details of the Council of Jamnia are scholarly surmise, the fact that the Jewish canon was not fixed until after Our Lord’s earthly ministry is proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain Hebrew versions of books and chapters left out of the Masorete, and on average agree with the reading given by the LXX better than that in the Masorete (there are points where all three disagree, but more points where the LXX and Masorete agree on which the DSS support the LXX rather than the other way around).


25 posted on 06/16/2013 6:18:33 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

“To Mr Rogers’ question: “Apocrypha” is what protestants call the books, “deuterocanonicals” are what Latins call them.”

This statement is incorrect. Why did the term “deuterocanonical” need inventing? Here is a hint: It was invented in 1566. Why?


26 posted on 06/16/2013 6:22:28 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fidelis

“First of all, the Septuagint manuscripts are all of Christian origin from the fourth and fifth centuries as opposed to Alexandria in Egypt. We do not know for certain that the Septuagint itself included the books of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Secondly, as already mentioned, there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, just because a book was listed in the manuscripts did not mean it was canonical. It simply means that these books were read in the Church. This likely parallels the general perspective of many of the fathers of the early Church. During the Church age, certain books were designated canonical while others were called ecclesiastical, but all were grouped together without distinction. The ecclesiastical books were useful for reading and edification but were not authoritative for the establishing of doctrine. This position was held by both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem, who used the Septuagint, but were careful to exclude the Apocryphal books from the status of canonical Scripture. This was also the practice of the Jews of Palestine. While rejecting Tobit and Judith as canonical, they still read them. This is seen from the statements of Josephus who used the Septuagint but excluded the Apocryphal books from canonical status.”

“The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about AD 90 goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. The combined results of their investigations is as follows:

(a) The term ‘synod’ or ‘council’ is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.
(b) The date of the session may have been as early as AD 75 or as late as AD 117.
(c) As regards the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Eccelsiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Eccelsiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.
(d) The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.46

As Bruce confirms, the Council of Jamnia changed nothing relative to the canonical status of any of the Old Testament books:

So far as the scriptures are concerned, the rabbis at Jamnia introduced no innovations; they reviewed the tradition they had received and left it more or less as it was. It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon.47

The theory of Jamnia is unsupportable because the Apocrypha was never considered for the canon. It was never even discussed.”

http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart1.html


27 posted on 06/16/2013 6:31:34 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; fidelis

Wow, I thought you were quoting me there for a second. Almost word for word with my post.


28 posted on 06/16/2013 6:47:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Even Luther credited Catholics with the institution of the Bible.

Catholic Scripture Study Bible - RSV Large Print Edition


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

29 posted on 06/16/2013 7:06:50 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Salvation; fidelis; All
More leeway is granted to the article in an "ecumenical" labeled RF thread than to the reply posts. However, the descriptions of Luther in the article are too antagonistic for the ecumenical tag to remain.

Having said that, it was evidently the intent of the original poster to keep the discussion respectful and academic. Everyone should try to meet those goals.

30 posted on 06/16/2013 7:21:37 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Luther did some amazingly good stuff, but he was far from perfect - as I’m sure you will agree. And it doesn’t do much good to HAVE the Bible, if you refuse to translate it into the vernacular for the good of the common people.

But the CANON of the Bible was disputed within the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Many, including Luther’s accuser, kept the Apocrypha separate in authority, saying it was NOT useful for doctrine. Even the Council of Trent refused to address THAT question. Although the Council of Trent DID force theologians to create the word “deuterocanonical”...

If something is not authoritative for doctrine, then in what sense is it scripture?


31 posted on 06/16/2013 7:25:37 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Thank you, that was my intent.


32 posted on 06/16/2013 7:37:52 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: everyone
Some actual dates for everyone -- Timeline of how the Bible came to us

Timeline of how the Bible came to us

Date Event
AD
51-125
The New Testament books are written.
140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deleted references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament", the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.
200 The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. Each "city-church" (region) has its own Canon, which is a list of books approved for reading at Mass (Liturgy)
367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D. (Arianism starts introducing spurious books)
382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 
393 The Council of Hippo,  which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by ...
AD 405

Innocent sends a response to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse

Qui vero libri recipiantur in canone sanctarum scripturarum brevis annexus ostendit. Haec sunt ergo quae desiderata moneri voluisti: Moysi libri quinque, id est Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, necnon et Jesu Nave, et Judicum, et Regnorum libri quatuor simul et Ruth, prophetarum libri sexdecim, Salomonis libri quinque, Psalterium. Item historiarum Job liber unus, Tobiae unus, Hester unus, Judith unus, Machabeorum duo, Esdrae duo, Paralipomenon duo. Item Novi Testamenti: Evangeliorum libri iiii, Pauli Apostoli Epistolae xiiii: Epistolae Iohannis tres: Epistolae Petri duae: Epistola Judae: Epistola Jacobi: Actus Apostolorum: Apocalypsis Johannis. Caetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae, sive Jacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis, quae a quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andreae, quae a Nexocharide, et Leonida philosophis, vel sub nomine Thomae, et si qua sunt talia, non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris esse damnanda. Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings 2 together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, 3 and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, 4 two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. 5 Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John's Apocalypse. But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.

1. The Latin text here conforms to the one printed in B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), pp. 570f.

2. That is, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.

3. According to Augustine, five books were sometimes ascribed to Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.

4. That is, Ezra and Nehemiah.

5. F.F. Bruce prefers "thirteen" here, which implies the omission of Hebrews. He states that "the three best" copies of the letter "reckon Paul's epistles as thirteen (written xiii), but the rest reckon them as fourteen (written xiiii)." (Canon of Scripture, p. 234.) But it is not at all probable that Hebrews would have been deliberately omitted from the list by a Roman bishop in the year 405, and the variation between xiiii and xiii is easily explained by scribal error.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html

AD787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
1442 AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.  This is 100 years before the Reformation.
1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.


The term "canon" means is that a book is approved for reading at the Divine Liturgy --that is, the Mass. This is what "canon" (a Greek word meaning "rule") originally referred to. The "canonical" books were those books which were approved for reading at the Liturgy.

Books which were not approved for reading at the Liturgy were called "apocryphal" (or "hidden"), and so excluded from the Liturgy. Among the "apocryphal" books, some were considered to be very orthodox and even inspired (but still not approved for public reading at the Liturgy), and others were considered to be uninspired or to contain errors (or even to be outright heretical). Only the "canonical" books were approved for reading at the Liturgy (the Mass).

Before the late 4th Century, each city-church had its own, local "canon" of the Bible, and these local canons differed from city-church to city-church ---some local canons including books which are currently excluded from our present Bible (such as 1 Clement to the Corinthians, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Book of Enoch, etc.), and some local canons excluding books which are currently included in our present Bible (such as the Epistle of James, and Hebrews, and 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The reason that city-churches had different local canons is because city-churches had different local Liturgies --that is, the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-church of Rome was different from the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-Church of Corinth, or the city-church of Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, etc. This included the yearly Liturgical calendar, with different city-churches celebrating different local feast days on any given date.

Since the feast days differed, so did the corresponding readings for those feast days; and since there were only so many Liturgical readings (from so many canonical books) that a city-church could have in a given year, this limited the number of books in the local canon of that city-church.

As the Church entered the 4th Century, there was no such thing as one, universal "Bible"
(one universal Scriptural canon, which the entire, universal Church shared in common).

When the Arian heresy ripped the Church apart (pitting bishop against bishop, and city-church against city-church), this created an enormous problem, since you had different bishops (Arian vs. Catholic) quoting from different books (or sets of books) in defense of either Arianism or Catholic Trinitarianism. Needless to say, this complicated and prolonged the controversy, and made Arianism much harder to defeat. Well, by the year 382, when the Arian heresy was finally defeated, Pope St. Damasus of Rome (who had been the librarian for the church of Rome prior to becoming Pope) took it upon himself to correct this problem, and to guarantee that it would not happen again, by initiating steps for the formation of a universal canon of Scripture which all city-churches would hold in common, which would eliminate any book which even implied Arianism (or other condemned heresies).

To "start the ball rolling" on this, Pope Damasus promoted a Biblical canon which was a synthesis of the canon of the city-church of Rome and that of the city-church of Alexandria --the two leading city-churches of the universal Church. Damasus then turned this proposed canon over to the bishops of North Africa for analysis and debate. And he did this for four reasons:

  1. North Africa was not part of the theology schools of either Alexandria or Antioch, which were the two intellectual factions that had caused the Arian controversy.
  2. North Africa had the most bishops per capita of anywhere in the universal Church at the time, so they would reflect a good sample of universal opinion among the bishops.
  3. The North African Church had a traditional custom of meeting in council (either at Carthage or at Hippo) every two years, which would give them the ability to hash things out effectively; and
  4. Many of the North African bishops were renowned scholars, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, who participated in the debate and helped to formulate the canon.

So, at both the councils of Hippo (393) and at Carthage (397), the North African bishops worked out the final canon of the both the Old and New Testaments for the universal Church. This is the present canon of the Catholic Church, which the North Africans then submitted to Rome for final ratification. Now, we're not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called "canon of Carthage" (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decision (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate) would disseminate it throughout the East.

The timeline by Mark Bonocore & Bob Stanley

Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way.
We have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together,
we give you absolute permission to move.
Amen

33 posted on 06/16/2013 7:39:35 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The term "canon" means is that a book is approved for reading at the Divine Liturgy --that is, the Mass. This is what "canon" (a Greek word meaning "rule") originally referred to. The "canonical" books were those books which were approved for reading at the Liturgy.
34 posted on 06/16/2013 7:41:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Definition of "canon" for you.

The term "canon" means is that a book is approved for reading at the Divine Liturgy --that is, the Mass. This is what "canon" (a Greek word meaning "rule") originally referred to. The "canonical" books were those books which were approved for reading at the Liturgy.

35 posted on 06/16/2013 7:43:58 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

I like your disertation, Reader. I am of the opinion that the books of the Old Testament were there before any ‘Christian’ believers decided they were properly there or not. And there are some books, Enoch, for instance, that are quoted in the New Testiment writings that have not been included. And why is not the Book of Enoch included? It is a book that was known 2000 years ago. Why not now? You mention the Ethiopian Church, I have heard they have an ‘authentic’ Book of Enoch. And there are others, Jasher, for instance.

I use a number of different translations in my own studies, and one I like is The Jerusalem Bible. Over the last 40+ years I wore one out and replaced it. I am not referring to The New Jerusalem Bible, btw, the orginal one is much better. And it has ALL the books of the Old Testament in it.

The point of my earlier post is that we who are Christians, are not bound by edicts that come from Rome. Nor from any other ‘man-made’ religious order. That being said, I have a cousin-in-law, a very dear friend, who is a Roman priest. I have another good friend who is an Orthodox priest...and we have had some very good conversations about many things, and all w/o conflict.

God has made it very clear to us, my wife and I, that all systems of men are soon coming to an end...economic. political, religious. All are coming to an end. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, he came to bring all men into fellowship with the Father. He did not create church hierarchy, He gave us the Holy Spirit so that we might each one of us have direct access to God as Father, Son and Spirit. He abolished human hierachy on the cross. The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom...with that we, all of us, were no longer separated from direct access to God. From that moment we no longer needed anyone but Jesus Himself as our Intercessor. I am free to address My God and My Father affectionately, as Abba Father, just as Jusus did.


36 posted on 06/16/2013 7:44:26 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

So by your definition, a book can be ‘canon’ but not scripture...

Wiki gives the more common definition:

“”A biblical canon, or canon of scripture, is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community. The word “canon” comes from the Greek ... meaning “rule” or “measuring stick”. The term was first coined in reference to scripture by Christians, but the idea is said to be Jewish.”

But if you want to argue that Protestants are right about the canon of scripture, and that the Catholic Church has the right to read other texts during their services...I think you will find total acceptance by Protestants.


37 posted on 06/16/2013 8:08:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

RM,
Thank you.

“Having said that, it was evidently the intent of the original poster to keep the discussion respectful and academic. Everyone should try to meet those goals.”

Always a good thing, and all too often missing in those who claim to follow Christ.


38 posted on 06/16/2013 8:16:48 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Looks like it is the same meaning only “leftist” wiki did not want to include the word “Liturgy.”


39 posted on 06/16/2013 8:55:35 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Hmmm...”considered to be authoritative scripture”. Authoritative...


40 posted on 06/16/2013 9:12:07 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Do you think that authoritative and approved for use in the liturgy are pretty close? I do.

If it weren’t authoritative — ir would have never been approved, would it?


41 posted on 06/16/2013 9:15:06 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“AD
51-125 The New Testament books are written”


The latter date on this should be doubted, as it most likely based on estimates by liberal scholars. The New Testament was assembled within the first century, almost all of it before the destruction of the Jewish temple, with only John’s works being written afterwards. Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Papias, between them, either quote or reference almost every book in the New Testament, save 2 Peter and a couple of others. (Though their silence on it does not mean it was not there, as they discussed or quoted from particular works as the need arised.) Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias lived within the 1st century and were said to have discourse with each other and the apostle John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. All of this points to an early composition of the New Testament, exactly as the scripture itself testifies.


42 posted on 06/16/2013 9:15:21 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

And isn’t what is read in the liturgy — check out a Daily or Sunday Readings thread — indeed Scripture?


43 posted on 06/16/2013 9:15:56 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

You really do sound like a Catholic to me.....Are you sure you aren’t an inactive Catholic...just away for awhile?


44 posted on 06/16/2013 9:18:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I think most of the new Testament was written by the year 100. I haven’t checked in the introductions to the books you mention, though.


45 posted on 06/16/2013 9:19:55 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“If it weren’t authoritative — ir would have never been approved, would it?”

Yet up until the Council of Trent, a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church REJECTED the Apocrypha as authoritative. It was just good for reading. And actually, the Council of Trent left it that way - possibly. It refused to decide if the Apocrypha was good for doctrine, or just nice stories to read.

“The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” — History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57


Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent, Cajetan wrote:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html


46 posted on 06/16/2013 9:32:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fidelis

Doesn’t Rabbinical Judaism have a 3-part “descending” view of the Canon? Torah, Neviim and Ketubim (Books of Law, Prophets and Writings) are not held in the same esteem. Torah is preeminent, the Prophets less significant, and Writings a further step down.

Correct me if I am wrong.


47 posted on 06/16/2013 9:34:30 PM PDT by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“You really do sound like a Catholic to me....”


I’m not sure you know what a Catholic is, then.


48 posted on 06/16/2013 10:03:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

LOL!


49 posted on 06/16/2013 10:04:44 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

That I haven’t heard. I do get the impression that the Torah is the primary teaching source in Rabbinic Judaism, so it seems to have pride of place in this regard.


50 posted on 06/16/2013 10:08:45 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson