Canon of the Bible

[Jim_Dandy]

saslo.org/resources.html

This is the website of St. Anne’s Byzantine Catholic Church, “Perfectly United With Benedict XVI, Vicar of Christ on Earth.”

Please note that the biblical texts listed follow the Catholic canon. The Vulgate, a Latin translation to replace the Old Latin, was chiefly the work of St. Jerome, commissioned by Pope Damasus I following the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. The same canon was affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) – and Trent (1545-63).

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

COUNCIL OF TRENT – FOURTH SESSION

–quote–

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. [Emphasis added]

–end quote–

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

This precedes the list of Scriptures posted above.

–quote–

COUNCIL OF TRENT

SESSION THE FOURTH
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

–end quote–

You can read the ending of the decree at the Hanover link provided.

Jim Dandy

 

[Gregory_I]

Exactly, so none of the books of the eastern Orthodox are condemned or are received by THAT synod, but they are not infallibly excluded.

IN fact, the council that established the eastern canon of scripture was was given ecumenical approbation at the Council of Nicea II. I will see if I can find it…

 

[Gregory_I]

OK, here is actually what I found on another website about this issue, specifically two issues come out: THat of the councils of trullo, and that the Orthodox canon SHOULD be limited to the 419 COuncil of Carthage:

"There is nothing in the canons (that is, official pronouncements) of Nicaea II that specifically affirms the canon of Carthage. Nicaea II’s objective was to condemn the Iconoclast heresy and to put down the errors associated with it. The Council’s acceptance of the Carthaginian canon was done as a “side-bar” issue, and we only know about it because Byzantine clerics speak about it in their correspondences as an issue that was settled at the Council. The closest statement made to this effect by the Council itself in its Acts is this proclamation from its first canon:

"Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, (Like the councils in trullo) or by our holy Fathers (like the councils of Carthage). For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. (In canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of II Nicaea II).

Included in these “locally assembled councils” being referred to here is the 419 Council of Carthage, which re-affirmed the 397 Biblical canon and then issued an anathema against anyone who denied it. This anathema was not included in the original 397 proclamation of Carthage; but by 419, the Carthaginian canon of Scripture had been ratified by Rome (i.e., Pope Innocent ratified and published in before 405) and had been re-affirmed in 419 by Pope Boniface. This is included in the anathemas referred to by Nicaea II above, although Carthage itself (A.D. 419) is not specifically mentioned in the official canons of Nicaea II. But, again, we know from the correspondence of the time that this is part of what the Council had in mind. And we Catholics are not the only ones who confess this. Educated Eastern Orthodox recognize it too.

Now, … At the time, the Byzantines also considered the 692 Council of Trullo (a.k.a. the Quinisext Council) to be Ecumenical and binding on the Eastern Church/Empire, even though Rome refused to ratify it as a matter of universal authority. Yet, while Trullo was still subject to debate at this time, it clearly fell under the criteria of a council that was “locally assembled for promulgating the degrees of [the] Ecumenical councils.” This cannot be denied. And, at the 692 Byzantine council of Trullo, the African Code of the 419 Council of Carthage (that is, the assembled canons of the Carthagian councils) was embraced by the Byzantine church. As the Catholic encyclopedia (newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm) explains it:

“It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest.”

Ergo, at the regional council of Trullo (692), the African Code, which, included the Biblical canon of Carthage (that is, Canon 24 of the 419 Council of Carthage, which reaffirmed the 397 Biblical canon) became formal and binding for the Eastern Church. ***This cannot be denied. ***

The reason we say that the canon of Carthage was given Ecumenical authority at Nicaea II is because Nicaea II (from the Byzantine perspective and by Byzantine standards) gave ecumenical authority to the decree of Trullo which made the Carthaginian Biblical canon the norm for the Eastern Church. In other words, while we Romans do not accept the council of Trullo to be Ecumenical or binding, the Byzantines (that is, Eastern Orthodox) do. Thus, they are bound by what they profess; and Nicaea II makes them share that profession with us Romans in an ecumenical context. This is the contemporary understanding expressed by in the private correspondences of the fathers who participated in Nicaea II viz. the Biblical canon.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.htm

That’s where I got it, and I have to agree, I modify my position: THe Orthodox should hold only to the books listed in the Canons of the council of Carthage. Unless some other regional council accepting them can be shown.

I also agree many books are NOT accepted like enoch, and jubilees that the Ethiopians use.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not a big fan of copy/pastes, but would you mind saying where either council says that this is the limit of books which may be used? As has already been mentioned the OT isn’t read during services anyway, and none of the OT quotes in the services are from those books anyway.

 

[ciero]

Um, if you want to be in “communion with Rome” then you have to believe what Rome believes. Trent is an Ecumenical Council, and it trumps the small “t” traditions of the Eastern Churches. I love my UGCC parish and Eastern traditions, but Dogma and Doctrine applies to all Catholics. Picking and choosing results in cafeteria Catholicism, and that club is full of the “catholic” all-stars like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

If you find other works, such as 4 Macc, uplifting then that is wonderful and fine, but Catholics, East and West, accept the Canon from the Council of Trent.

Rome has made it clear over and over there are 7 ecumenical councils, all the rest are local councils of the Western church. This includes BXVI.

 

[ciero]

Curious though since there are really no Old Testament readings during Divine Liturgy, whats the point if the Bible of the Eastern Christians contain more OT books?

As important as the Divine Liturgy is…it is NOT the be all and end all. Come to Vespers some time and hear the Old Testament being read.

 

[mardukm]

I hope the following will help explain things.

The word “Canon” and the word “Scripture” are not identical.

“Canon” was used by the Fathers (and by Trent) to refer to those particular Scriptures that are used in disputation against heretics - i.e., those Scripture that “prove” the Faith.

“Scripture,” on the other hand, denotes a more generic class of sacred literature, and can include not only those particular Scriptures that are used in disputation against heretics (i.e., the “Canon”), but also books traditionally used for the sake of edification.

Nowadays, people normally don’t distinguish between “Canon” and “Scripture,” and such a lack of distinction has the sad potential for legalism.

The differences among and within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches apply not to the “Canon” (understood according to the Fathers [and Trent]), but to those books that are used for edification. Some Churches have more books for edification, some Churches have less, but the “Canon” - again, that word as understood by the Fathers (and Trent) - is basically identical.

Regarding Trullo, that Synod actually also accepted 4 other biblical Canons from other patristic sources, yet these Canons were slightly different from the one proffered by Carthage. It is theoretically possible that Carthage’s biblical Canon was understood by Trullo to correct all other previous biblical canons, especially since Carthage’s Canon was the latest to be accepted.

That’s all I have time for today, and I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

Curious though since there are really no Old Testament readings during Divine Liturgy, whats the point if the Bible of the Eastern Christians contain more OT books?

.

There really are old testament readings in Eastern services, including the DL.

 

[smad0142]

Ciero,
Can you show me where that claim is taught as a teaching of the Church?

An Ecumenical Council is when all of the world’s Bishops who belong to Christ’s Church convene and address whatever the issues of the day may be. What some theologians are claiming to be general councils are clearly ecumenical councils. The Orthodox have valid Episcopal Succession but since 1054 their Bishops are not necessary for the Church to meet in ecumenical session.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As important as the Divine Liturgy is…it is NOT the be all and end all. Come to Vespers some time and hear the Old Testament being read.

Sure, if there’s one that offers it in my area. Even the local UOC doesn’t have Vespers.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Rome has made it clear over and over there are 7 ecumenical councils, all the rest are local councils of the Western church. This includes BXVI.

Citation(s), please.

The General Councils of the Church, by John L. Murphy, Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee, 1960, written after Vatican II had been announced but before it convened, gives the history and decrees of 20 General or Ecumenical Councils.

Our Sunday Visitor’s (one volume) Catholic Encyclopedia, 1991 lists 21 councils, under Councils, Ecumenical; the last was Vatican II.

These are only two of many references, all giving the total number as 21.

The list of all 21 Ecumenical Councils and their decrees can be found at this website:

piar.hu/councils/~index.htm

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I hope the following will help explain things.

The word “Canon” and the word “Scripture” are not identical.

“Canon” was used by the Fathers (and by Trent) to refer to those particular Scriptures that are used in disputation against heretics - i.e., those Scripture that “prove” the Faith.

“Scripture,” on the other hand, denotes a more generic class of sacred literature, and can include not only those particular Scriptures that are used in disputation against heretics (i.e., the “Canon”), but also books traditionally used for the sake of edification.

Nowadays, people normally don’t distinguish between “Canon” and “Scripture,” and such a lack of distinction has the sad potential for legalism.

The differences among and within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches apply not to the “Canon” (understood according to the Fathers [and Trent]), but to those books that are used for edification. Some Churches have more books for edification, some Churches have less, but the “Canon” - again, that word as understood by the Fathers (and Trent) - is basically identical.

Regarding Trullo, that Synod actually also accepted 4 other biblical Canons from other patristic sources, yet these Canons were slightly different from the one proffered by Carthage. It is theoretically possible that Carthage’s biblical Canon was understood by Trullo to correct all other previous biblical canons, especially since Carthage’s Canon was the latest to be accepted.

That’s all I have time for today, and I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Please provide your source for this difference in the definition of Scripture and Canon.

It has always been my understanding that “Scripture” and “Canon” are synonomous. Books that are considered ‘edifying,’ but not ‘Scripture,’ have historically been added in an appendix. This practice originated with some versions of the ancient Vulgate; books not considered Scripture, or canonical, but nevertheless regarded as valuable, were added in an appendix.

Luther used the appendix as his method of removing the deuterocanonical books from the canon and for relegating Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to less than canonical status in the NT in his German translation of the Bible (c.1534).

Jim Dandy

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Given that since many of you don’t believe in a closed Canon, one could argue that maybe we can just use as many books as we want and add them into the Scripture(i.e the Gnostic Gospels).

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.(The Council of Carthage)

 

[Nine_Two]

Given that since many of you don’t believe in a closed Canon, one could argue that maybe we can just use as many books as we want and add them into the Scripture(i.e the Gnostic Gospels).

Why would we add books that completely disagree with what we teach to our bibles? Your argument makes no sense and seems to come from a perspective that Scripture is the be all and end all, i.e. Sola Scriptura. We don’t believe that either.

 

[Gregory_I]

Smad0142:

I am afraid you are incorrect on the ecumenical council issue. THe “Great schism” did not occur in 1054. What happened was two hotheaded bishops (Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael) got mad at each other and mutually anathematized EACH OTHER, not the entire church on either side. FOr example, there wasn’t a distinct Orthodox Church that was opposed to the Roman Catholic church the next morning. Friendly relations were maintained over the next few centuries, it was only at the COuncil of Florence (WHich ROme initially labelled as the 8th ecumenical because of the presence of the eastern bishops, so figure that out) that the “Schism” Which at that point was more informal disagreement and estrangement was really solidified.

THe challenge NOW is to justify the councils that were considered ecumenical by the West BETWEEN 787 and 1438? I think that was the date of the council of florence.

THe Eastern Bishops definitely matter, and always have.

INcidentally there is no formal documentation or council that establishes the Orthodox Church apart from the Catholic church. Each side did consider the other wrong, BUt I don’t think there was any formal split till rather late in history.

Help me out Orthodox friends, I expect you to know if I am right or wrong here.

 

[smad0142]

Gregory,

Cerularius excommunicated a Papal Legate, a symbolic action that excommunicated the Pope in the eyes of the Orthodox. The Patriarch of Constantinople would not give up the title of Ecumenical Patriarch and would not accept the supremacy of Rome as the head and mother Church. From that point of view, the East broke away in 1054. Amicable relationships, if they did exist, does not make the two Churches to be in communion with each other.

BTW I doubt the Orthodox during that time considered the Latins to be in communion with them, eg the Massacare of the Latins. This is only one example of the animosity that both sides showed to each other.

Also the claim that the Orthodox finally left after the Council of Florence is equally absurd. The Council was called to bring about reunion, that is why the Council resulted in the document of the Union of Florence. How could a Council be called to re-unite the Churches if the schism wasn’t for real until after that Council?

** I love the Othodox, and pray for re-union. I worship in the UGCC. I just don’t think either side should shy away from the facts or their positions, that is the only way an honest discussion can take place.

 

[Gregory_I]

“Reunion” or proselytization? DO any of the acts of that council refer to the “Greek Church” as opposed to the “Latin Church?” Or do they merely refer to greeks and Latins with the understanding of ONE Catholic church?

 

[smad0142]

Reunion or proselytization, I do not care which word you pick. In either case those words can only apply to people outisde of the Faith. I very well could not proselytize someone who is in the Church, becuase you can not convert someone who already belongs.