Canon Question: Pslam 151 and 3rd Macc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redbaron998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redbaron998

Guest
If I am correct the Greek Septuagint included psalm 151 and 3rd Macc. Was there any particular reasons the Early Church decided not to include these in the canon?

(Note: I am not saying they should have been nor questioning the canon, just curious as to the reasons why)
 
If I am correct the Greek Septuagint included psalm 151 and 3rd Macc. Was there any particular reasons the Early Church decided not to include these in the canon?

(Note: I am not saying they should have been nor questioning the canon, just curious as to the reasons why)
It really wouldn’t be accurate to say these were rejected by the “Early Church”. Although Psalm 151 was rejected by the Latinate (Western) Church, it was accepted as canonical by Slavonik, Greek, Georgian, Syriac, Ethiopic Orthodox and in all of the Churches of the East (so in the Greek, Syriac and Ethiopic textual traditions). So at least in respect to Psalm 151, the Catholic rejection of this text was distinctly a minority viewpoint. Fragments of Psalm 151 (in Hebrew) were found also among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Acceptance of Third Maccabees into the canon is a little more evenly split, being accepted only (as far as I know) by the Georgian Orthodox as well as the various Eastern Orthodox churches as canonical.
 
Which agains begs the question of why? Im sure they had reasonings I would just like to know what they are.
 
My understanding. for 3 and 4 Mac is a very late date for a
Authorship not. sure of 151
 
Dave Noonan
the Catholic rejection of this text was distinctly a minority viewpoint
A “viewpoint” did not enter into the infallible declaration of the canon of the Scriptures.

How do we know which writings are the inspired Word of God? Only through the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church.

The “Bible” was given to the world by the Catholic Church. The New Testament was written by Catholics; the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The books that actually are declared 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) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.
 
A “viewpoint” did not enter into the infallible declaration of the canon of the Scriptures.

How do we know which writings are the inspired Word of God? Only through the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church.

The “Bible” was given to the world by the Catholic Church. The New Testament was written by Catholics; the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The books that actually are declared 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) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.
The decision of the Latinate Church to exclude Psalm 151 from the Bible obviously wasn’t an infallible decision because the vast majority of the early church didn’t agree with it, nor did the Latinate Church ever challenge the other ancient churches over their differing biblical canons. (You’d think if the Pope actually thought excluding Psalm 151 from the canon of scripture was infallibly binding on all of Christendom, he would have also had the duty to make it an issue.)

The “councils” you are citing above (other than Trent of course) were simply local synods. And, cognizant of the fact that the canons differ among the ancient churches, Trent only decrees that certain books are scripture, but not that the Council is providing a complete list of all scripture. (Of course, not that any of the other churches would consider Trent binding upon them anyway.)

You can certainly validly argue that the Catholic Church gave the Western world its own particular version of the biblical canon. But not the entire world.
 
Dave Noonan #8
the vast majority of the early church didn’t agree with it,
That anyone disagrees with the definition of Christ’s Church simply expresses the fact that they have cut themselves off from His Church carrying His authority. No other ecclesial community has any authority from Christ to go against His Church on faith or morals. It is a matter “of Faith” through the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture contains the 46 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p246].

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”
 
You can certainly validly argue that the Catholic Church gave the Western world its own particular version of the biblical canon. But not the entire world.
No matter which version of the bible you are using, the canon preserved those texts for you to have. One might remove a few books and claim it’s something new, but it’s still thanks to the Catholic church by and large that you have a bible. In fact, the early church ‘wrote’ the New Testament. In order to completely reject Catholic Tradition you also have to reject your bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top