Bible Canons

[ajcstr]

So the Hanaagraff thread got me thinking…

Catholics would point to the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome to point to the origin of the Canon

Protestants more or less would not point to a Canon per se but would probably lean towards a statement like “everybody know what the inspired books were”

Where would the Orthodox fall in this area? I guess they used a different version of the Septuagint which would account for the OT differences but did they accept the NT as laid out by those councils as they predated the split or did they arrive at their Canon independently?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Great question.

And if the NT was binding why wasn’t our version of the OT binding as well?

 

[ltwin]

Protestants more or less would not point to a Canon per se but would probably lean towards a statement like “everybody know what the inspired books were”

Well, obviously everyone didn’t know since different lists and different canons are in existence. If we’re generalizing (which is a dangerous thing), I think “Protestants” would say that the church obviously had to come to a consensus. Some books were more obvious candidates than others, but Christians made choices.

 

[Fidelis]

Well, obviously everyone didn’t know since different lists and different canons are in existence. If we’re generalizing (which is a dangerous thing), I think “Protestants” would say that the church obviously had to come to a consensus. Some books were more obvious candidates than others, but Christians made choices.

That’s the way I usually hear it phrased by Protestants across the board, but it brings up some reasonable questions. For example:

1. Who were these unidentified “Christians” that made the final decision about the contents of, say, the NT canon, and what authority did they have to make this decision? I mean, if you’re going to have a single canon of inspired books that is binding on everyone, it can’t be left to the decision of each individual believer, but a recognized authoritative decision would have to be made.
2. If there was no recognized authority, what was the mechanism that was used by this nebulous body of Christians to decide the canon-- to come to a “consensus”? Did they take a democratic vote among all Christians in the world on it? Did they draw lots or straws? We don’t find any records of anything like this happening, As you rightly point out, some books were more obvious candidates than others, but many were not. What authority was present to make a binding determination-- a determination that even Protestants are bound to hold today?

That’s just for starters. There is a Catholic answer for these questions, of course, but I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to reconcile this.

 

[ajcstr]

Well, obviously everyone didn’t know since different lists and different canons are in existence. If we’re generalizing (which is a dangerous thing), I think “Protestants” would say that the church obviously had to come to a consensus. Some books were more obvious candidates than others, but Christians made choices.

Fair enough. I didn’t want to get sidetracked on this issue because I am really trying to get at the Orthodox process. Would it suffice to say that by the time of the reformation, the Bible (OT + NT) existed so there was no canon issue? Whether you believe that subsequent Protestants removed 7 books from the OT or the Catholic Church added 7 books at Trent is a separate topic. My point was just that Martin Luther and those that followed had a complete Bible which was not the case for Catholics and Orthodox.

No slight intended.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The canons of the Eastern Churches are larger than the canons of the Western Churches. While I think pointing to councils can be beneficial to see where certain sectors of the Church were with regards to which biblical books they had (namely, Hippo, Carthage and the like) they didn’t seem to have much of an impact on biblical canons of the East.

As late as John of Damascus we see differences with regards to the bible canons. His canon being 67 books. He does not include in the Wisdom of Solomon or Sirach into the same category of books the rest of sacred scripture was. He also includes an extra book in the New Testament, the Apostolic Canons, which makes him quite unique.

By the time of the reformation in the Eastern Orthodox Church we see a clear affirmation in the council of Jerusalem of the Deuterocanon.

“‘The Wisdom of Solomon,’‘Judith,’‘Tobit,’‘The History of the Dragon,’‘The History of Susanna,’*‘The Maccabees,’ and ‘The Wisdom of Sirach.’ For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those.”

Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus, The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, ed. J. J. Overbeck, trans. J. N. W. B. Robertson (London: Thomas Baker, 1899), 155.

Yet I believe even today in the Russian Synodical translation of the bible it follows the Masoretic with regard to the Canon. (I would like to be corrected if I am wrong on this point, since this is just the information I’ve gathered from Wikipedia).

So at least within the Orthodox tradition there is no official list of books which must or must not be included into the bible.

 

[ajcstr]

The canons of the Eastern Churches are larger than the canons of the Western Churches. While I think pointing to councils can be beneficial to see where certain sectors of the Church were with regards to which biblical books they had (namely, Hippo, Carthage and the like) they didn’t seem to have much of an impact on biblical canons of the East.

Well, I would think the councils I mentioned had a big impact on what would become the Latin Vulgate whereas Greek would have remained the dominant language for scripture in the East.

 

[SJacob7]

I don’t think we should give ‘man’ or ‘councils’ too much credit in determining which books belong in the Bible. Man was led by the Holy Spirit to write these books in the first place. Don’t you think the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with the decision making process of which books to use regardless of which ‘man’ or ‘council’ was involved? We, as in ‘man’ don’t deserve the credit.

 

[ajcstr]

I don’t think we should give ‘man’ or ‘councils’ too much credit in determining which books belong in the Bible. Man was led by the Holy Spirit to write these books in the first place. Don’t you think the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with the decision making process of which books to use regardless of which ‘man’ or ‘council’ was involved? We, as in ‘man’ don’t deserve the credit.

Not taking the credit but the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, the Holy Spirit inspired MEN to write it and directed MEN as to which writings were inspired. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the men at the council of Nicea to reject Arianism?

 

[adf417]

I don’t think we should give ‘man’ or ‘councils’ too much credit in determining which books belong in the Bible. Man was led by the Holy Spirit to write these books in the first place. Don’t you think the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with the decision making process of which books to use regardless of which ‘man’ or ‘council’ was involved? We, as in ‘man’ don’t deserve the credit.

I agree we dont deserve the credit but someone had to make the hard decision and declare what of the many books being used in the liturgy at the time would no longer be used. Thanks be to God!!!

Peace!!!

 

[Fidelis]

I agree we dont deserve the credit but someone had to make the hard decision and declare what of the many books being used in the liturgy at the time would no longer be used.

And that someone had to have had the authority to declare it and whose decisions had to be binding on all other Christians for all places and for all time. This is not a small thing.

 

[ltwin]

That’s the way I usually hear it phrased by Protestants across the board, but it brings up some reasonable questions. For example:

1. Who were these unidentified “Christians” that made the final decision about the contents of, say, the NT canon,

We know who the Christians were who composed the Western canon. They aren’t “unidentified.” They were the Christians in the Mediterranean world. We have teachers and councils weighing in on this and ultimately a consensus is reached within the churches of the Roman world. No offense, but I’m avoiding using the word “Catholic Church” because in the context of antiquity I’m not sure that what we know of as the institution of the Catholic Church today has really “developed” yet. Yes, we have a bishop of Rome and other major sees like Constantinople and Alexandria, etc. But I"m not sure we’re seeing the same kind of centralization of ecclesiastical power in Rome that we see in the Middle Ages.

I"m not an expert in this time period though. Just pointing out generalized knowledge I’ve picked up along the way.

and what authority did they have to make this decision? I mean, if you’re going to have a single canon of inspired books that is binding on everyone, it can’t be left to the decision of each individual believer, but a recognized authoritative decision would have to be made.

No, not the individual believer. The church as a whole had authority to discern which books were inspired. They didn’t “make” any book inspired. The leaders of the church were tasked with discerning the apostolic origins of any likely candidates.

1. If there was no recognized authority, what was the mechanism that was used by this nebulous body of Christians to decide the canon-- to come to a “consensus”? Did they take a democratic vote among all Christians in the world on it? Did they draw lots or straws? We don’t find any records of anything like this happening, As you rightly point out, some books were more obvious candidates than others, but many were not. What authority was present to make a binding determination-- a determination that even Protestants are bound to hold today?

I assume bishops had a large role to play and priests. They would be the one’s most likely participating in church councils and compiling canonical lists to be used in their churches. I"m not sure what role regular Christians played, but they had a role. If no one is reading and reproducing these texts then they would not need to be considered for canonicity. The fact that Christians were reading these texts made it necessary to discern whether or not they were inspired.

 

[adf417]

And that someone had to have had the authority to declare it and whose decisions had to be binding on all other Christians for all places and for all time. This is not a small thing.

Also lets not forget that the number of books used in the liturgy during this time seemed to be growing not decreasing, which was the cause for clarification. One can only wonder what the canon would look like if it were left up to the church as a whole to decide this.

Peace!!!