You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JimG
Guest
Within the link provided, click on “next question” at the top to get more information about the old testament scriptures as well as the development of the new testament.
While the Jews did not formally establish a canon until after the time of Jesus (and possibly in reaction to Christianity), the Septuagint, prepared by Jewish rabbis several centuries before the time of Jesus, is the closest thing to a commonly accepted compendium of the Jewish scriptures. It seems to have been accepted by Jews not only in the Greek speaking areas, but also in Palestine, and there is literary evidence that it was used by Jesus and his followers.
While the Jews did not formally establish a canon until after the time of Jesus (and possibly in reaction to Christianity), the Septuagint, prepared by Jewish rabbis several centuries before the time of Jesus, is the closest thing to a commonly accepted compendium of the Jewish scriptures. It seems to have been accepted by Jews not only in the Greek speaking areas, but also in Palestine, and there is literary evidence that it was used by Jesus and his followers.
C
Calvinator
Guest
What difference does it make if Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint in light of the fact that the septuagint contained books such as III and IV Macabees? Also, what version of the septuagint did Jesus and the apostles use as there is no one version?Within the link provided, click on “next question” at the top to get more information about the old testament scriptures as well as the development of the new testament.
While the Jews did not formally establish a canon until after the time of Jesus (and possibly in reaction to Christianity), the Septuagint, prepared by Jewish rabbis several centuries before the time of Jesus, is the closest thing to a commonly accepted compendium of the Jewish scriptures. It seems to have been accepted by Jews not only in the Greek speaking areas, but also in Palestine, and there is literary evidence that it was used by Jesus and his followers.
If you are insinuating that since Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint and the septuagint contained what you guys call the deutero’s it must follow that the deutero’s are inspired, how do you reject the other writings contained within the septuagint?
J
JimG
Guest
I guess the short answer is that the Church decided which books belonged in the canon of scriptures, and the Church had the authority to make that decision. The Church’s decision was made apparent at the Council of Rome in 382, the Council of Hippo in 393, at Carthage in 397, II Nicea in 787, the Council of Florence in 1442, and Trent in 1546.
Luther’s first German translation of the bible into German contained these same books, as did the first King James version ever published, in 1611. They were included in most protestant bibles, at least as an appendix, up until 1825, when the British Foreign Bible Society took them out.
Luther’s first German translation of the bible into German contained these same books, as did the first King James version ever published, in 1611. They were included in most protestant bibles, at least as an appendix, up until 1825, when the British Foreign Bible Society took them out.
C
Calvinator
Guest
Thanks for your reply Jim.I guess the short answer is that the Church decided which books belonged in the canon of scriptures, and the Church had the authority to make that decision. The Church’s decision was made apparent at the Council of Rome in 382, the Council of Hippo in 393, at Carthage in 397, II Nicea in 787, the Council of Florence in 1442, and Trent in 1546.
Luther’s first German translation of the bible into German contained these same books, as did the first King James version ever published, in 1611. They were included in most protestant bibles, at least as an appendix, up until 1825, when the British Foreign Bible Society took them out.
It is my understanding that Trent was the first…I don’t know how to term this…infallible definition of the canon. Is that correct?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Will the LIE of Trent Adding the dueterocannonical books never end?
Satan always tells the same old lies!
Satan always tells the same old lies!
C
Calvinator
Guest
Who said anything about Trent adding the books you call deutero’s?Will the LIE of Trent Adding the dueterocannonical books never end?
Satan always tells the same old lies!
J
JimG
Guest
I’m no expert on the history of the Councils, so perhaps someone with more knowledge could address this. It may be true that Trent was the first council to invoke an infallible delcaration–I’m not sure of that. But the previous councils are also considered authoritative, and the earlist one in Rome in 382 recited the same canon which was ratified by all the rest, and is still used by the Catholic Church today.Thanks for your reply Jim.
It is my understanding that Trent was the first…I don’t know how to term this…infallible definition of the canon. Is that correct?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I could be wrong but wasn’t the bible definitive in 401AD when the lists of the canon from those regional councils were submitted to and approved by the Pope?
J
jrsmith
Guest
You are right in saying that someone’s usage of a book does not make it canonical. For example, the fact that the book of Jude makes references to the Assumption of Moses & Book of Enoch does not make those books Canon. The Church is the only body authorized to declare books canonical or not. The Jews are not the church, and therefore have no authority over us christians in determining canon (I am referring to their council of Jamnia that Protestants look to.)What difference does it make if Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint in light of the fact that the septuagint contained books such as III and IV Macabees? Also, what version of the septuagint did Jesus and the apostles use as there is no one version?
If you are insinuating that since Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint and the septuagint contained what you guys call the deutero’s it must follow that the deutero’s are inspired, how do you reject the other writings contained within the septuagint?
C
Calvinator
Guest
From a non-Catholic perspective, arguing for the authenticity of a canon based on a Jewish council would be the same as arguing for the authenticiy of a canon based on a Christian council.The Jews are not the church, and therefore have no authority over us christians in determining canon (I am referring to their council of Jamnia that Protestants look to.)
I don’t believe any council to be infallible.
C
Calvinator
Guest
I have heard several Catholic apologists (Sungenis, Pacwa, Michuta, Matatics, etc) admit that the first infallible declaration of the canon was at Trent. I think the verbage used in one of the articles at www.newadvent.org also states that Trent was the first infallible definition of the canon. Maybe the article at newadvent was under the OT canon?I’m no expert on the history of the Councils, so perhaps someone with more knowledge could address this. It may be true that Trent was the first council to invoke an infallible delcaration–I’m not sure of that. But the previous councils are also considered authoritative, and the earlist one in Rome in 382 recited the same canon which was ratified by all the rest, and is still used by the Catholic Church today.
Additionally, up until Trent we see distinguished Catholics not accepting at least some of the books you guys call deutero’s as canonical. I will have to go back and re-read the information but I do believe Cardinal Cajetan as well as Pope Gregory refused to accept all the deutero’s as canon. There were quite a few others as well that refused to accept all the books now included in your canon. Of course, this was before Trent but it does seem to indicate that the earlier councils were not in fact infallible decrees.
Also, in Michutas’s debate vs. James White, the subject of the canon of Trent and the earlier canons came up. I don’t understand the details but apparently the canon declared at Trent does not match identically with the canon declared at some of the earlier councils.
C
Calvinator
Guest
I just don’t know how “authoritive” they would be.I’m no expert on the history of the Councils, so perhaps someone with more knowledge could address this. It may be true that Trent was the first council to invoke an infallible delcaration–I’m not sure of that. But the previous councils are also considered authoritative, and the earlist one in Rome in 382 recited the same canon which was ratified by all the rest, and is still used by the Catholic Church today.
I’m not sure that Trent’s canon was identical to the canon issued by the council of Rome in 382. I don’t remember the details of this but in the debate between White and Michuta the subject of Trent’s canon not matching identically with one or more of the earlier canons came up. Something about the earlier canons including books or parts of books that Trent passed over (to use Michuta’s words).
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I’m not familiar with the debates mentioned, so I’d better not speak infallibly. But the Trent canon is identical to that given by Pope Damasus in 382. And Trent was largely a response to the protestant reformation. Councils are apt to give infallible declarations when previous beliefs are threatened.I have heard several Catholic apologists (Sungenis, Pacwa, Michuta, Matatics, etc) admit that the first infallible declaration of the canon was at Trent. I think the verbage used in one of the articles at www.newadvent.org also states that Trent was the first infallible definition of the canon. Maybe the article at newadvent was under the OT canon?
Additionally, up until Trent we see distinguished Catholics not accepting at least some of the books you guys call deutero’s as canonical. I will have to go back and re-read the information but I do believe Cardinal Cajetan as well as Pope Gregory refused to accept all the deutero’s as canon. There were quite a few others as well that refused to accept all the books now included in your canon. Of course, this was before Trent but it does seem to indicate that the earlier councils were not in fact infallible decrees.
Also, in Michutas’s debate vs. James White, the subject of the canon of Trent and the earlier canons came up. I don’t understand the details but apparently the canon declared at Trent does not match identically with the canon declared at some of the earlier councils.
Certainly we see “distinguished Catholics” disputing what belongs in the the canon. St. Jerome himself personally favored the shorter canon, but deferred to the pope’s authority in the matter and produced the Latin Vulgate with the longer canon. That canon remained in universal use until the time of the reformation. Even then, most of the earliest bibles produced by protestants contained the deuterocanonicals.
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
C
Calvinator
Guest
The canons were different. You can google to Michuta’s website and get his (Catholic apologist) take on it. I have listened to the debate several times and read several rebuttals from both sides and still don’t have a firm grasp on it. Apparently Trent “passed over in silence” a portion of what was included in the earlier canons.Well, I’m not familiar with the debates mentioned, so I’d better not speak infallibly. But the Trent canon is identical to that given by Pope Damasus in 382. And Trent was largely a response to the protestant reformation. Councils are apt to give infallible declarations when previous beliefs are threatened.
Certainly we see “distinguished Catholics” disputing what belongs in the the canon. St. Jerome himself personally favored the shorter canon, but deferred to the pope’s authority in the matter and produced the Latin Vulgate with the longer canon. That canon remained in universal use until the time of the reformation. Even then, most of the earliest bibles produced by protestants contained the deuterocanonicals.
The reason I made the point about several “distinguished Catholics” rejecting some or all the books you call the deutero’s was because I was trying to make the point that he earlier couincils did not hold universal authority. I sincerely doubt that a man such as Cardinal Cajetan would have willingly rejected the councils authority if he believed it to have been an infallible statement or if he thought the council had universal authority.
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the reference to Machuta’s “Hands On Apologetics” site. He has way more material than I can read. I found this from one of the articles on his site:
In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine’s see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. (Source (Articles of Interest: W. Hartono)
The New Advent site says this:
Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. Source.
Since neither article provides an actual list of the canonical books which were being affirmed, I was only going by their summary statements.
While I agree that Trent was the first to provide a formal and doctrinally explicit definition of the canon, my point is that the longer canon was accepted and in general use a thousand years before Trent. So it was not a matter of Trent adding books. They were already there.
In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine’s see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. (Source (Articles of Interest: W. Hartono)
The New Advent site says this:
Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. Source.
Since neither article provides an actual list of the canonical books which were being affirmed, I was only going by their summary statements.
While I agree that Trent was the first to provide a formal and doctrinally explicit definition of the canon, my point is that the longer canon was accepted and in general use a thousand years before Trent. So it was not a matter of Trent adding books. They were already there.
C
Calvinator
Guest
The debate between Michuta and White was pretty good. A lot of good points were made but the debate covered so much ground so quickly, a lot of it historical, that it’s hard to research each point in any detail.Thanks for the reference to Machuta’s “Hands On Apologetics” site. He has way more material than I can read. I found this from one of the articles on his site:
In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine’s see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. (Source (Articles of Interest: W. Hartono)
The New Advent site says this:
Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. Source.
Since neither article provides an actual list of the canonical books which were being affirmed, I was only going by their summary statements.
While I agree that Trent was the first to provide a formal and doctrinally explicit definition of the canon, my point is that the longer canon was accepted and in general use a thousand years before Trent. So it was not a matter of Trent adding books. They were already there.
C
Calvinator
Guest
My understanding of it is that Trent was the first authoritive proclamation of the canon for the universal church (at least in Catholic eyes).Thanks for the reference to Machuta’s “Hands On Apologetics” site. He has way more material than I can read. I found this from one of the articles on his site:
In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine’s see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. (Source (Articles of Interest: W. Hartono)
The New Advent site says this:
Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. Source.
Since neither article provides an actual list of the canonical books which were being affirmed, I was only going by their summary statements.
While I agree that Trent was the first to provide a formal and doctrinally explicit definition of the canon, my point is that the longer canon was accepted and in general use a thousand years before Trent. So it was not a matter of Trent adding books. They were already there.
I don’t believe the deutero’s are canonical so I guess I do believe that at some point the books were “added” to the canon. I’m hesitant to say they were added at Trent because it’s obvious they were in use earlier than that council.
C
Calvinator
Guest
He seems like a pretty good guy. I usually enjoy listening to formal debates as I feel I can learn a lot about both sides from two experts…or hopefully they are experts in their field.Thanks for the reference to Machuta’s “Hands On Apologetics” site.
I do think written debates are better because sometimes the content being covered is so great and the time given to cover it so short in an oral debate that both side only hit the high points.
In fact, in some oral debates, one side will end up ignoring the other side so as to present their side more accurately.
The few written debates I’ve seen seem to give each side more of an opportunity to present their case and their rebuttals as well as affording both sides a better chance at cross examination.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.