Case for the Catholic Cannon?

[CatholicofAgora]

As a former Protestant, I came to accept the Deutercanonical books in the Catholic Bible because they were present in the Greek Septuagint used by Christ and His Apostles and that their inclusion shouldn’t be excluded on the basis of the language they’re written in because the Jews were Hellenized under Alexander the Great atleast 300 years before Christ walked the Earth and if I were to exclude the Greek Old Testament books on the basis of language then I must also exclude the New Testament. However I am also finding that there are a number of works included in Greek and Slavonic Bibles found in the Septuagint that are not found in the Roman Catholic Cannon of Sacred Scripture. There are also books such as Enoch and others that didn’t make the Cannon that were also in the Septuagint that aren’t present in any Bibles.

My question is: How can I reject these books even though the principle by which I accepted the Deutercannonical books, that they were used by the first century Christians, equally applies to the other books not found in the Catholic Cannon?

Thanks, God bless…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As a former Protestant, I came to accept the Deutercanonical books in the Catholic Bible because they were present in the Greek Septuagint used by Christ and His Apostles and that their inclusion shouldn’t be excluded on the basis of the language they’re written in because the Jews were Hellenized under Alexander the Great atleast 300 years before Christ walked the Earth and if I were to exclude the Greek Old Testament books on the basis of language then I must also exclude the New Testament. However I am also finding that there are a number of works included in Greek and Slavonic Bibles found in the Septuagint that are not found in the Roman Catholic Cannon of Sacred Scripture. There are also books such as Enoch and others that didn’t make the Cannon that were also in the Septuagint that aren’t present in any Bibles.

My question is: How can I reject these books even though the principle by which I accepted the Deutercannonical books, that they were used by the first century Christians, equally applies to the other books not found in the Catholic Cannon?

Thanks, God bless…

As you observe, some of the books you mention that are in the Septuagint but didn’t make it into the Catholic canon ARE accepted as canonical by various Eastern churches.

Just FYI, here’s a handy chart, that as far as I know is accurate. (You have to scroll down to the end of the article.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As a former Protestant, I came to accept the Deutercanonical books in the Catholic Bible because they were present in the Greek Septuagint used by Christ and His Apostles and that their inclusion shouldn’t be excluded on the basis of the language they’re written in because the Jews were Hellenized under Alexander the Great atleast 300 years before Christ walked the Earth and if I were to exclude the Greek Old Testament books on the basis of language then I must also exclude the New Testament. However I am also finding that there are a number of works included in Greek and Slavonic Bibles found in the Septuagint that are not found in the Roman Catholic Cannon of Sacred Scripture. There are also books such as Enoch and others that didn’t make the Cannon that were also in the Septuagint that aren’t present in any Bibles.

My question is: How can I reject these books even though the principle by which I accepted the Deutercannonical books, that they were used by the first century Christians, equally applies to the other books not found in the Catholic Cannon?

Thanks, God bless…

The ultimate answer is the Church. It’s ultimately up to the Church’s judgement which books are canonical and which are not, not up to our own private judgment.

 

[pablope]

However I am also finding that there are a number of works included in Greek and Slavonic Bibles found in the Septuagint that are not found in the Roman Catholic Cannon of Sacred Scripture. There are also books such as Enoch and others that didn’t make the Cannon that were also in the Septuagint that aren’t present in any Bibles.

My question is: How can I reject these books even though the principle by which I accepted the Deutercannonical books, that they were used by the first century Christians, equally applies to the other books not found in the Catholic Cannon?

Thanks, God bless…

It stems from Tradition…one of the reasons for coming up with the canon or standard set for the Bible was to have a standard set of writings for reading during the Mass.

The canon of the East included the books of the OT that were traditionally read during their liturgy.

 

[Cominghome89]

It’s nearly impossible to use a kind of litmus test based on what the first century Christians would have used, because there was no defined canon, either OT or NT. Yes, the Septuagint is the Bible Jesus would have been familiar with, and that’s comforting. But, the Septuagint was not a defined canon. Some Palestinian Jews at the time of Christ may have accepted Enoch or Jubilee or many other books not accepted as canonical.

Ultimately, the term “inspired” is a lot more loose than the term “canonical”. Some of these books that are not part of the canon may be profitable spiritual reads, written by holy authors inspired by God. We don’t necessarily need some proof that they are somehow less inspired or less authentic than the canonical books of the Old Testament. We accept them because Holy Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to fix a set canon, so we know what makes up the Bible. There are tons of arguments as to why our canon contains the most authentic choices, and tons of counter-arguments as to why certain books should be included or rejected. But, as the above poster said, it all comes down to Church authority. If we don’t accept the authority of the Church on this…oh my goodness, can you imagine which books would make up the Bible for some…err…independent-minded people?

In Christ through Mary,
Frank

 

[MarcoPolo]

The ultimate answer is the Church. It’s ultimately up to the Church’s judgement which books are canonical and which are not, not up to our own private judgment.

More specifically, it is up to the Holy Spirit to reveal to the Church those texts which are divinely inspired.

 

[Publisher]

I would think that the Orthodox canon would have a better case for it IF you’re accepting those books in the LXX…since the Catholic canon has removed some books from the LXX…the Orthodox use more of the LXX than do Catholics.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

More specifically, it is up to the Holy Spirit to reveal to the Church those texts which are divinely inspired.

Well, there’s no public revelation after the death of the last apostle, so that isn’t the best way to put it. To guide the Church and prevent her from binding the faithful to error, that’s a continuing role of the Holy Spirit which is relevant here.

 

[jcrichton]

I think that the question should be why did the Catholic Church not include all of the books that were part of the Septuagint?

ie: What factor determined that the book of Enuch should not be included in the Canon?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Abu]

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.

Rejecting Christ’s mandate to St Peter and his successors is the reason for the errors of others in leaving out 7 books.

 

[Fragile]

“Feed My sheep?”

 

[CatholicofAgora]

OHMYGOSH…!!! I’ve been spelling “canon” wrong!!!