M
mark_a
Guest
By whom and when was the order of the books of the bible decided? Is the order simply chronological?
- Status
E
edward_george
Guest
The order of the books of the Bible is not entirely chronological, but that’s all I know about that.
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage first decided the Canon of Scripture in the 300s
From New Advent:
The Council of Trent, held in reaction to the Reformation, formally declared the Deuterocanonical books to be part of the canon, against Luther’s omission of them (Note–the Deuterocanonical books had been part of the OT from the start–they were in the Septuagint, or Greek OT, that Jesus taught from. Luther tried to relegate them to lesser importance because they didn’t gel with some of the things he believed–purgatory, for instance, is mentioned in 2 Maccabees. Many anti-Catholics believe that Trent added these books to the canon, however this is false.)
For more, check out catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
-ACEGC
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage first decided the Canon of Scripture in the 300s
From New Advent:
newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm
The Council of Trent, held in reaction to the Reformation, formally declared the Deuterocanonical books to be part of the canon, against Luther’s omission of them (Note–the Deuterocanonical books had been part of the OT from the start–they were in the Septuagint, or Greek OT, that Jesus taught from. Luther tried to relegate them to lesser importance because they didn’t gel with some of the things he believed–purgatory, for instance, is mentioned in 2 Maccabees. Many anti-Catholics believe that Trent added these books to the canon, however this is false.)
For more, check out catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
-ACEGC
M
mark_a
Guest
mark a:
bump
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
mark a:
They are not in order of date - if they were, 1 Thessalonians would be first in order. Some are to the same recipients, others are alike in contents. These days, between 7 & 10 are generally recognised as his: Ephesians is often regarded as not his.
Acts is part of a two-book work, Luke being the earlier book. The reason they are separated, is that Luke’s character as a gospel trumped its position as a work of Luke, so the more important books, the gospels, go together, and the Acts has to get by without directly following the book to which it is a sequel. So it gets as close to its gospel as it can, and directly follows John’s Gospel.
IIRC the gospels are in their order because:
Matthew is an Apostle - so comes first
Mark is an associate of an Apostle - so he comes second
Luke was an associate of Paul who, though an Apostle, was not one of the original Twelve who knew Jesus face to face on earth - so he is next
John’s gospel was not received as canonical without some controversy - which may be why his is last.
Acts has been mentioned; “the Apostle” - the letters of Paul - follow the Gospel in importance, so they come next, by length. The undisputed “Catholic” or “Universal” letters come next: the ones that are not written to a named recipient. Some Catholic letters took a time to be recognised, for a variety of reasons, so they come next - 2 Peter was one of them. In addition, they are much shorter than the other NT books. Doubts about Revelation are probably the reason it is last - to this day, there is at least one ancient Church which does not recognise it as canonical.
So there was a number of considerations at work in influencing the order of the NT books.
The OT is just as complicated
##
About that second question - simple answer, “No”.
More complex answer: the 14 letters attributed to St.Paul are arranged by the number of lines they came to, and are broken down into three sub-groups: 10 which were regarded as his from very early on, three (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus) which were more questionable, and one (Hebrews) which was earlier to gain recognition in the East as Pauline than in the West.They are not in order of date - if they were, 1 Thessalonians would be first in order. Some are to the same recipients, others are alike in contents. These days, between 7 & 10 are generally recognised as his: Ephesians is often regarded as not his.
Acts is part of a two-book work, Luke being the earlier book. The reason they are separated, is that Luke’s character as a gospel trumped its position as a work of Luke, so the more important books, the gospels, go together, and the Acts has to get by without directly following the book to which it is a sequel. So it gets as close to its gospel as it can, and directly follows John’s Gospel.
IIRC the gospels are in their order because:
Matthew is an Apostle - so comes first
Mark is an associate of an Apostle - so he comes second
Luke was an associate of Paul who, though an Apostle, was not one of the original Twelve who knew Jesus face to face on earth - so he is next
John’s gospel was not received as canonical without some controversy - which may be why his is last.
Acts has been mentioned; “the Apostle” - the letters of Paul - follow the Gospel in importance, so they come next, by length. The undisputed “Catholic” or “Universal” letters come next: the ones that are not written to a named recipient. Some Catholic letters took a time to be recognised, for a variety of reasons, so they come next - 2 Peter was one of them. In addition, they are much shorter than the other NT books. Doubts about Revelation are probably the reason it is last - to this day, there is at least one ancient Church which does not recognise it as canonical.
So there was a number of considerations at work in influencing the order of the NT books.
The OT is just as complicated
##
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
The Council of Trent (1546) fixed the arrangement of the books of the New Testament for Catholics as we know it today. Prior to that there were various arrangements. For example, the Council of Florence (1442) lists the Acts of the Apostles between Jude and the Apocalypse and the first Gutenburg Bible (1455) lists the Acts of the Apostles between Hebrews and James.
I could be wrong but my guess is that the arrangement of the books of the New Testament as we know it today is based on Erasmus’ 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament which he created from some Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition. Martin Luther’s German translation and William Tyndale’s English translation were both based on Erasmus’ New Testament.
I could be wrong but my guess is that the arrangement of the books of the New Testament as we know it today is based on Erasmus’ 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament which he created from some Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition. Martin Luther’s German translation and William Tyndale’s English translation were both based on Erasmus’ New Testament.
- Status