Books in the Bible

[Eric_Peter]

I need a little help to understand something.

The canonical books in the Bible were decided in the Synod of Hippo in 393,
and I couldn’t find anything from that Synod, so I read the one from the Synod of Carthage 3 (probably in 419)

The book list is as below

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, 4 books. (Samuel 2 books and Kings 2 books)
The Chronicles, 2 books.
Job.
The Psalter. (Psalms)
The Five books of Solomon. (Proverbs, Ecclessiates, Songs, Wisdoms, Sirach)
The Twelve Books of the Prophets. (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezekiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, 2 books.
Maccabees, 2 books.

Looking at it again and again, I find these books are missing from the canon.

Lamentations
Baruch

Google search engine did not help at all.
Perhaps someone can explain to me?

 

[Eric_Peter]

Ok, I found the answer here onechurch.org/Historical_evidence_on_the_canon_of_Scripture.htm

No more question

 

[DavidFilmer]

The canonical books in the Bible were decided in the Synod of Hippo in 393,
and I couldn’t find anything from that Synod, so I read the one from the Synod of Carthage 3 (probably in 419)

Hippo and Carthage were both provincial synods without universal authority. However, the proceedings of Carthage were accepted by the Pope, so the Canon became a Magesterial teaching, and (almost) nobody questioned it until Luther. However, the Canon was not formally defined as doctrine until Trent.

 

[JonNC]

Hippo and Carthage were both provincial synods without universal authority. However, the proceedings of Carthage were accepted by the Pope, so the Canon became a Magesterial teaching, and (almost) nobody questioned it until Luther. However, the Canon was not formally defined as doctrine until Trent.

Key word here is almost, David, and I’m not even sure about that. Cr. Cajetan certainly did, and there was debate at Trent about it, from what I understnad. I think the situation was more that questioning the disputed books didn’t become an issue until Luther.

Jon

 

[Philthy]

Key word here is almost, David, and I’m not even sure about that. Cr. Cajetan certainly did, and there was debate at Trent about it, from what I understnad. I think the situation was more that questioning the disputed books didn’t become an issue until Luther.

Jon

That doesnt quite reconcile all the facts either Jon. If it were not “an issue” then those councils would not have been addressing the issue at all…but they did. The “issue” had arisen well before Luther - that is indisputable. The question that remains is what was different about the issue during Luther’s time than at all other times. My guess is that the Church felt that Luther posed more of a danger to the faithful (which Cajetan did not) for a variety of reasons and that is why they dealt with it more forcefully.
Such discussions miss the big point, however. The big point is this:
Do we have a canon of Scripture? yes or no
If we do then when, exactly, and by whom, exactly, was it determined?
And lastly: How, exactly, do you know this?
If we do not, then does Luther’s or anyone else’s version of Sola Scriptura remain plausible?

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;7721419]That doesnt quite reconcile all the facts either Jon. If it were not “an issue” then those councils would not have been addressing the issue at all…but they did. The “issue” had arisen well before Luther - that is indisputable. The question that remains is what was different about the issue during Luther’s time than at all other times. My guess is that the Church felt that Luther posed more of a danger to the faithful (which Cajetan did not) for a variety of reasons and that is why they dealt with it more forcefully.
I will accept this.

Such discussions miss the big point, however. The big point is this:
Do we have a canon of Scripture? yes or no
If we do then when, exactly, and by whom, exactly, was it determined?
And lastly: How, exactly, do you know this?

These are all valid questions, as there are a variety of Christian canons, depending on the communion. What is more, there are a variety of understandings of the value of certain books, even if not considered canon.

If we do not, then does Luther’s or anyone else’s version of Sola Scriptura remain plausible?

Irrelevent, because, as a foundation for hermeneutics, a communion will use that which it considers canon, regardless of the considerations of others. This would also be true for those who use Tradition and Scripture. I would suspect that Orthodox Churches would use their canon the same way Rome uses it’s.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC
These are all valid questions, as there are a variety of Christian canons, depending on the communion. What is more, there are a variety of understandings of the value of certain books, even if not considered canon.

As Jesus established His Church with Peter as His Vicar and with Infallibility, only She can legitimately, with His authority, declare which writings form the Sacred Scriptures . She has.

The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio (EWTN) on Aug-20-2010
Saint Jerome translated the ancient Greek and Hebrew Old Testment (46 books) and the Greek New Testament (27 books) into Latin and combined them into the first one volume set of Sacred Scriptures called “the Bible”.

 

[JonNC]

=Abu;7722630]As Jesus established His Church with Peter as His Vicar and with Infallibility, only She can legitimately, with His authority, declare which writings form the Sacred Scriptures . She has.

The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Hi Abu,
This gets discussed all the time here, but just two questions: why is it that the Orthodox do not recognise the local and regional synods you mention here (except Trent) as ecumenical? And further, if they were binding prior to the Schism, why do they not accept the canons they state?

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio (EWTN) on Aug-20-2010
Saint Jerome translated the ancient Greek and Hebrew Old Testment (46 books) and the Greek New Testament (27 books) into Latin and combined them into the first one volume set of Sacred Scriptures called “the Bible”.

Indeed, and he too had serious reservations about what we now call the Deuterocanon, and so did many others, all the way up to Trent.

“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.”
-Cardinal Cajetan

Actually, I agree in generally with the bolded part. As a Lutheran, I think it would be worth considering the D-C’s in this manner, and not exclude them from the Bible.

Jon

 

[simspt]

Irrelevent, because, as a foundation for hermeneutics, a communion will use that which it considers canon, regardless of the considerations of others. This would also be true for those who use Tradition and Scripture. I would suspect that Orthodox Churches would use their canon the same way Rome uses it’s.

Jon

Jon,
dont you think ultimately u r making yourself accountable to something beyond the Scriptures then?? Havent u just taken it back one step farther by acknowledging the decision of your particular communion and decisions it made for its particular canon? I think the question remains relevant.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
dont you think ultimately u r making yourself accountable to something beyond the Scriptures then?? Havent u just taken it back one step farther by acknowledging the decision of your particular communion and decisions it made for its particular canon? I think the question remains relevant.

I’m not sure I understand the second part of your question, but I would say that there are definitely things short of scripture that I am accountable to: the early creeds and councils, the Lutheran Confessions, etc.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC
why is it that the Orthodox do not recognise the local and regional synods you mention here (except Trent) as ecumenical? And further, if they were binding prior to the Schism, why do they not accept the canons they state? Indeed, and he too had serious reservations about what we now call the Deuterocanon, and so did many others, all the way up to Trent.

Do you not know that one of Christ’s chosen Judas, betrayed Him?

Do you not know of many “theologians” who have dissented and doubted from the time of Christ?

On whose authority can the declaration of an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope be challenged? Did Christ gave His authority to Tom, Dick and Harry?

The Council of Trent did not invent some list of books. Rather, it considered the accepted canons and affirmed them.

 

[Deconi]

Do you not know that one of Christ’s chosen Judas, betrayed Him?

Do you not know of many “theologians” who have dissented and doubted from the time of Christ?

On whose authority can the declaration of an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope be challenged? Did Christ gave His authority to Tom, Dick and Harry?

The Council of Trent did not invent some list of books. Rather, it considered the accepted canons and affirmed them.

Strong, perhaps, but I love it!

 

[JonNC]

Do you not know that one of Christ’s chosen Judas, betrayed Him?

Do you not know of many “theologians” who have dissented and doubted from the time of Christ?

On whose authority can the declaration of an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope be challenged? Did Christ gave His authority to Tom, Dick and Harry?

The Council of Trent did not invent some list of books. Rather, it considered the accepted canons and affirmed them.

I am sure that Trent did not invent some list of books, though I do not accept Trent as truly ecumenical. But even Catholics were clearly permitted by the Church to dispute the D-C’s (without being compared to Judas).

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC
I do not accept Trent as truly ecumenical

An Ecumenical Council is so named because it represents the whole Christian world in union with the See of Peter, in which the bishops meet for deliberation and decision with the confirmation of the Pope or his legates.

The reference to Judas, dissenting theologians over the ages, and any other dissenters or self-styled authorities, merely substantiates that anyone may freely choose to, and many have so done, oppose the teaching which Christ has authorized solely through His Church.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Disputing the teaching of Popes or Ecumenical Councils is really not biblical, and the Canon of the Scriptures is infallibly defined.

 

[Tom]

Key word here is almost, David, and I’m not even sure about that. Cr. Cajetan certainly did, and there was debate at Trent about it, from what I understnad. I think the situation was more that questioning the disputed books didn’t become an issue until Luther.

Jon

Hi Jon, thanks for the discussion, the problem is, we are looking at this as if the seven books of the so called “DC” were the issue. They were not, the issue was the expanded Scripture of the oriental Churches. The Orthodox has a larger list than the Roman list. So these seven were not disputed. What was disputed was a LARGER list.

 

[Tom]

I am sure that Trent did not invent some list of books, though I do not accept Trent as truly ecumenical. But even Catholics were clearly permitted by the Church to dispute the D-C’s (without being compared to Judas).

Jon

What is interesting is Luther chose to follow the Jewish list. The list which removes so very many moving passages of the prophetic references to Jesus as the Christ. The only people who argue that these seven books are not Scripture are those who have not studied them. Please, if you haven’t yet, which you sound like you have already, study them. They are Scripture. The Jewish leaders rejected them, after the second destruction of the Temple, because they pointed so clearly to Jesus. In these seven books are so very many Catholic teachings which separate “us” you, and I as brothers in Christ.
As a a P.S. I have a close friend who is Southern Baptist, we discussed this very subject, I asked him to read and reflect on these books. It didn’t change his faith, but he now understands mine much more.

 

[Tom]

I should add, I’m not saying the oriental, or eastern list is not accurate, nor is the Church saying this. The Church does not say the books included in the eastern Church are not Scripture, they simply say the list they (Rome) pronounce ARE Scripture. Jesus never said we had all the answers, He simply said the answers we do have are correct.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, thanks for the discussion, the problem is, we are looking at this as if the seven books of the so called “DC” were the issue. They were not, the issue was the expanded Scripture of the oriental Churches. The Orthodox has a larger list than the Roman list. So these seven were not disputed. What was disputed was a LARGER list.

Hi Tom,
You are correct, we are talking about a larger list. But even at that, The Council of Trent stands as a closing of the canon, effectively, for The Catholic Church. Closing the canon means excluding those not included. My question, Tom; is Rome open to the idea that those books considered canon by the east could be canon, even though Trent does not state they are?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Tom;7729877]What is interesting is Luther chose to follow the Jewish list. The list which removes so very many moving passages of the prophetic references to Jesus as the Christ. The only people who argue that these seven books are not Scripture are those who have not studied them.

I assume you are talking about modern day laity, Tom, and I agree. We should read them and study them. Some Lutheran Churches still use them during worship, and I believe we should do more. I would disagree regarding our clergy, and Luther and the reformers were very well read regarding the D-C’s.

Please, if you haven’t yet, which you sound like you have already, study them. They are Scripture. The Jewish leaders rejected them, after the second destruction of the Temple, because they pointed so clearly to Jesus. In these seven books are so very many Catholic teachings which separate “us” you, and I as brothers in Christ.
As a a P.S. I have a close friend who is Southern Baptist, we discussed this very subject, I asked him to read and reflect on these books. It didn’t change his faith, but he now understands mine much more.

I’m not convinced that this is the only reason, but as I said, we owe it to ourselves to reconsider them.

Jon