Bible Canon and Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter fisherman_carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave_Noonan said:
No, he had them translated into German and included them his Bible. As has been discussed on many, many threads on this forum, the removal of the Deuterocanoncials happened much later in history via the British Bible Society’s efforts to produce a cheaper Bible.

And again, his views on the canon have absolutely nothing all to do with what’s in or not in the Masoretic Text–Luther was hardly “Jewish friendly.”

Now I’m curious about your reluctance to tell me where you’re getting your information.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I heard also. Luther kept these books in his bible but just moved them to the back and considered them to be apocryphal. I heard he also called the book of James an Epistle of straw. And, he added the word ‘alone’ in Rom 3:28. In any rate this discussion is not about Luther but why the Orthodox canon is different from the early councils. And, I don’t have a satisfactory answer on that still. Other than to say from the one Orthodox fellow who said they still use it in their liturgy. It seems like either the early church was not as organized or united on things like the canon as we would like to think or that the Orthodox at some time later decided against the early councils in favor of their own or just treated it as a recommendation.

I understand that these books were used in the liturgy. However, there is a big difference between calling a book the inspired word of God or not. It isn’t just for ceremonial purposes. It is where we can hear God speaking to us.

At least we all agree on the NT. Thank God for that! 😃
 
This is my understanding of Trent were it concerns the cannon. The List of Books to include as Holy Scripture must include those fond in todays OT as held in the Catholic Church. It does not say however that Books Such and Maccebees 3 and 4 (Jubilees. Enoch as the Ethiopian Orthodox include them) or any books that are in the Septuigent are not inspired. That is why there is no argument between Catholic and Orthodox over the cannon. The Catholic Church says the Larger OT of the Orthodox is fine wirh Them and the Orthodox are ok with to smaller cannon used by Catholic because we in on way say the larger one is invalid.

To wrap it up for the West Trent set the Minimum.

As to Martin Luther he did not remove them from the Bible He removed them from the OT and placed them in their own section as worth reading but not inspired.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
This is my understanding of Trent were it concerns the cannon. The List of Books to include as Holy Scripture must include those fond in todays OT as held in the Catholic Church. It does not say however that Books Such and Maccebees 3 and 4 (Jubilees. Enoch as the Ethiopian Orthodox include them) or any books that are in the Septuigent are not inspired. That is why there is no argument between Catholic and Orthodox over the cannon. The Catholic Church says the Larger OT of the Orthodox is fine wirh Them and the Orthodox are ok with to smaller cannon used by Catholic because we in on way say the larger one is invalid.

To wrap it up for the West Trent set the Minimum.

As to Martin Luther he did not remove them from the Bible He removed them from the OT and placed them in their own section as worth reading but not inspired.
Click to expand...
The question I would then have is if those books might be inspired then why weren’t they included in the council of Rome and other councils? Did any Catholics think they were inspired and should be included in the canon?
 
fisherman_carl said:
The question I would then have is if those books might be inspired then why weren’t they included in the council of Rome and other councils? Did any Catholics think they were inspired and should be included in the canon?
Click to expand...
The “Council” of Rome wasn’t really a council. It was a gathering of local bishops. No one from the churches in the East were invited.
 
DanielMo said:
The “Council” of Rome wasn’t really a council. It was a gathering of local bishops. No one from the churches in the East were invited.
Click to expand...
Nor does a local council require the inviting of every region. This does not make it any less a council, just simply not ecumenical.
 
PeaceInChrist said:
Nor does a local council require the inviting of every region. This does not make it any less a council, just simply not ecumenical.
Click to expand...
Historically, these local gatherings are referred to as synods. Using the term “Council” can lead people to erroneously think that this was ecumenical council, and thus more authoritative than it actually was.
 
As others have said the Catholic Biblical canon is not closed. I don’t know about the Orthodox, but it sounds like the situation is similar. Certain books have been declared to be Scripture, but there has not been a declaration that no other books are.

In my opinion, Catholic Church should ideally either explicitly accept the books that are in the Orthodox canon but not in ours, or should clearly reject them as not inspired. If these books are Scripture the faithful ought to know so they can avail themselves of them, and if they are not we should be warned (especially those like some Eastern Catholics who are inclined to view them as inspired Scripture) that they are not. Of course I know that because of ecumenical and pastoral concerns neither is going to happen for the foreseeable future.
 
DanielMo said:
Historically, these local gatherings are referred to as synods. Using the term “Council” can lead people to erroneously think that this was ecumenical council, and thus more authoritative than it actually was.
Click to expand...
Historically these local meetings were often called councils, and also the ecumenical councils were often called synods. I agree that if we could clarify our language, using one word for local councils and another for ecumenical ones, it would cut down on confusion, though on the other hand it would lead to further confusion when people encountered older documents.
 
DanielMo said:
Historically, these local gatherings are referred to as synods. Using the term “Council” can lead people to erroneously think that this was ecumenical council, and thus more authoritative than it actually was.
Click to expand...
From the ‘Synod’ article on New Advent:

“A general term for ecclesiastical gatherings under hierarchical authority, for the discussion and decision of matters relating to faith, morals, or discipline. It corresponds to the Latin word concilium. The word synodus appears probably for the first time in the so-called “Apostolic canons”, while the word concilium was employed in the same meaning by Tertullian more than a century earlier. Synod and council are, therefore, synonymous terms.”

newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm

If some misunderstand ‘council’ to automatically mean ‘ecumenical council’, they ought to be corrected, as there are several gatherings of bishops that were called ‘councils’ but that were not ecumenical.
 
ConstantineTG said:
That was my amendment to my post. That while there was never any official “closing” of the canon, it wasn’t like East and West added or removed books over the centuries. Indeed they never saw any need to make any official declaration on what the canon is until the Reformation as there was never any need. That is until Martin Luther.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Then again, maybe it was directed at Catholics.

Cardinal Cajetan, contemporary of Luther’s but certainly no ally:
“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.”
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Augustine3 said:
I did a Google search and found most websites confirm the bible canon was closed by Pope Innocent I. in the 5th century. However, I couldn’t find any solid evidence for it.

I don’t think the council of Trent closed the canon. The council merely reaffirmed the canon as a response to the Protestant reformation. Protestants were throwing a few books out of the NT. There’s the famous saying of Martin Luther regarding the letter of St James, he called it “ an epistle of straw”.

According to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou the Orthodox Church does not have a formal bible canon as it has never saw the need to define one. There is unanimous agreement among the Orthodox Ecclesial authorities of which books are inspired.
Click to expand...
No. Luther and the Lutheran reformers did not throw out any of the 27 NT books. What they did do was recognize the historic - back to Eusebius - disputes regarding some of them, known as the Antilegomena.

Luther’s comment, which is typically taken out of context, has nothing to do with a desire to “remove” St. James from the canon. Luther translated it, included it from his first NT translation in, I believe, 1522, and in every version, including the 1534 full Bible, which has 74 books in it. He often preached from James throughout his life.

Jon
 
DanielMo said:
The “Council” of Rome wasn’t really a council. It was a gathering of local bishops. No one from the churches in the East were invited.
Click to expand...
Does not matter…the decision of that council was had the papal stamp of Pope Damasus…from which Jerome was commissioned to translate the writings into latin.

After this council…there was no dispute as to what is in the Bible canon…till the protestants came to the scene and caused all the confusion about the canon.
 
pablope said:
Does not matter…the decision of that council was had the papal stamp of Pope Damasus…from which Jerome was commissioned to translate the writings into latin.

After this council…there was no dispute as to what is in the Bible canon…till the protestants came to the scene and caused all the confusion about the canon.
Click to expand...
JonNC’s surprising quote from Cajetan suggests there was still some dispute on the subject in the early 16th century. I wonder what the source is for this quote and whether it is authentic. If it is authentic then obviously Cajetan was wrong on this one.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
JonNC’s surprising quote from Cajetan suggests there was still some dispute on the subject in the early 16th century. I wonder what the source is for this quote and whether it is authentic. If it is authentic then obviously Cajetan was wrong on this one.
Click to expand...
Cajetan’s remarks may have been personal opinion…and for personal use and study or scholarly purpose…and is just mainly echoing Jerome…and was not foisted on the whole church…and he did not publish his own bible according to what he wanted it to be.

That is the difference.

Protestants are fond of mentioning Cajetan…and Jerome…but fail to realize Jerome also said this… "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

They submit to the judgement of the Church…Luther did not.
 
JonNC said:
Hmmm. Then again, maybe it was directed at Catholics.

Cardinal Cajetan, contemporary of Luther’s but certainly no ally:

Jon
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Constantinople had contact with the Reformers, but they were not in speaking terms with Rome. They don’t need to react to Rome at the time. As far as they are concerned, Rome is heretical and anything they do doesn’t count.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I doubt it. Constantinople had contact with the Reformers, but they were not in speaking terms with Rome. They don’t need to react to Rome at the time. As far as they are concerned, Rome is heretical and anything they do doesn’t count.
Click to expand...
Very brief contact at that. As an example, once he realized that the Lutherans in Tübingen did not believe as the Orthodox believe, and had no intention of changing their minds, Patriarch Jeremias II famously wrote that they should only write back concerning matters of friendship, and not concerning matters of theology.
 
=pablope;10790424]Cajetan’s remarks may have been personal opinion…and for personal use and study or scholarly purpose…and is just mainly echoing Jerome…and was not foisted on the whole church…and he did not publish his own bible according to what he wanted it to be.
Click to expand...
That is the difference.
Click to expand...
And neither did Luther. Luther, in his prefaces, states his opinion of the books of the Bible, just as Cardinal Cajetan did. And their opinions reflect the opinions of others throughout history. Luther’s prefaces were just that: opinion. His translation contained all of the books of the typical western Bible, with the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh. It was not until later, in the English, that the DC’s were left out.
Protestants are fond of mentioning Cajetan…and Jerome…but fail to realize Jerome also said this… "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with what St. Jerome said in this regard. Luther and Cajetan, and many others, were practicing the privilege that all Catholics had until Trent. Trent is the difference for Catholics today, but no one who lived prior to Trent can be held accountable to it. If I have an issue, it is with American Lutherans not using Bibles that contain 73 ( or 74 ) books, as Luther encouraged by his translation, and frankly, his words.
They submit to the judgement of the Church…Luther did not.
Click to expand...
In terms of his translation, he did. All of the books are there. None were left out. His prefaces are not canon, but opinion.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
And neither did Luther. Luther, in his prefaces, states his opinion of the books of the Bible, just as Cardinal Cajetan did. And their opinions reflect the opinions of others throughout history. Luther’s prefaces were just that: opinion. His translation contained all of the books of the typical western Bible, with the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh. It was not until later, in the English, that the DC’s were left out.

I have no problem with what St. Jerome said in this regard. Luther and Cajetan, and many others, were practicing the privilege that all Catholics had until Trent. Trent is the difference for Catholics today, but no one who lived prior to Trent can be held accountable to it. If I have an issue, it is with American Lutherans not using Bibles that contain 73 ( or 74 ) books, as Luther encouraged by his translation, and frankly, his words.

In terms of his translation, he did. All of the books are there. None were left out. His prefaces are not canon, but opinion.

Jon
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that he also relegated them to a section entitled ‘Apocrypha’ at the end of the book. The dueterocanons were read aloud in the Liturgy since the beginning of the Church; did the Lutherans do so, as well, or did this classification as ‘Apocrypha’ forbid reading during the Liturgy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top