Catholic vs. Protestant Bibles

[hockeyfan]

We were talking on the “Who founded your church” thread, and veered off topic, so I wanted to make another thread to discuss this.

Yes, we are talking about German. That’s what Luther translated into. And that’s exactly what Luther argued. I posted the quote already where he says that using “allein” is the full meaning of the Greek in German.

Right, but my problem is not that Luther translated the Bible into German. My problem is that he included a word that did not exist in the Greek.

But their canon is not the same as yours.

For those of you new to this conversation, Jon was pointing out as evidence that the Eastern Orthodox churches use a different Canon as evidence that the Council’s of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome did not settle the matter.

Anyways, the fact that they do not accept Papal supremacy is paramount, because if you don’t accept it, you couldn’t really call yourself Roman Catholic. The Canon was already determined in three councils to be inerrant, what makes Trent so different that it is the one to set in stone the books in the Bible? Lets go with your point for a second. None of those churches deny any of the books the Roman Church accepts, they just have a few extra writings. In that sense, none of the Deuterocanon was in question.

I quoted Cardinal Cajetan’s words.Jon

Yes, but I asked to provide someone who was pre-Luther. I gave you a 900 year period to find one. I did a small amount of research to find out he was from the same time, though he was born in the late 1400’s. So, I will ask you again. If the debate was still open, who between 600 and 1500 was challenging the Canon?

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8506959]We were talking on the “Who founded your church” thread, and veered off topic, so I wanted to make another thread to discuss this.

Hi hockeyfan. Whose your hockey team?

Right, but my problem is not that Luther translated the Bible into German. My problem is that he included a word that did not exist in the Greek.

That’s because Greek is a different language. Words and phrases do not match up exactly. It isn’t transliteration.

For those of you new to this conversation, Jon was pointing out as evidence that the Eastern Orthodox churches use a different Canon as evidence that the Council’s of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome did not settle the matter.

They were local councils, not gnereal councils such as Nicea.

Anyways, the fact that they do not accept Papal supremacy is paramount, because if you don’t accept it, you couldn’t really call yourself Roman Catholic. The Canon was already determined in three councils to be inerrant, what makes Trent so different that it is the one to set in stone the books in the Bible? Lets go with your point for a second. None of those churches deny any of the books the Roman Church accepts, they just have a few extra writings. In that sense, none of the Deuterocanon was in question.

If Hippo, for example set the canon, in 393, then it seems the whole Church at that time, long prior to the Schism, would have accepted it as the 73 books the Western Church accepted. I’m no expert, but did Orthodox add books after Hippo, or did they just never accept Hippo, etc, as general councils of the Whole Church?

Yes, but I asked to provide someone who was pre-Luther. I gave you a 900 year period to find one. I did a small amount of research to find out he was from the same time, though he was born in the late 1400’s. So, I will ask you again. If the debate was still open, who between 600 and 1500 was challenging the Canon?

If the good Cardinal Cajetan, not by any means a Luther ally, could speak about the canon the way he did, is this not evidence that the issue was not settled? If Hippo, Carthage, etc. had dogmatically defined the canon, would not a loyal Catholic Cardinal have accepted that in submission to the Church?

Jon

 

[hockeyfan]

Hi hockeyfan. Whose your hockey team?

LA Kings

That’s because Greek is a different language. Words and phrases do not match up exactly. It isn’t transliteration.

We just keep repeating the same points over and over on this one. So, lets approach this from a different angle. If Luther was simply trying to portray the meaning of the Romans passage, could you do me a favor and demonstrate me an argument that a reasonable person (right or wrong) could see how the meaning was in the Pauline passage?

They were local councils, not gnereal councils such as Nicea.

In that it was for the Roman Church only? First off, the Oriental Orthodox are a little different, because the history of the schism is different. Now, as far as the Eastern Orthodox traditions, I am not aware that they chalenge any of our Canon, just that they take on a little more.

If Hippo, for example set the canon, in 393, then it seems the whole Church at that time, long prior to the Schism, would have accepted it as the 73 books the Western Church accepted. I’m no expert, but did Orthodox add books after Hippo, or did they just never accept Hippo, etc, as general councils of the Whole Church?

Good question. I will have to do my homework on that. I will get back to you on that, I do know some people who are Eastern Orthodox.

If the good Cardinal Cajetan, not by any means a Luther ally, could speak about the canon the way he did, is this not evidence that the issue was not settled? If Hippo, Carthage, etc. had dogmatically defined the canon, would not a loyal Catholic Cardinal have accepted that in submission to the Church?

Jon

Your right that he wasn’t a Luther ally, but his work was much in response to Luther. My point was that you have to get to Luther to see these chalanges to the Bible made again. Trent had to re-affirm the Bible because Luther made such challenges, and the good Cardinal was just showing up as a reflection of the time. Remember that the Cardinal does not have Papal infalibility.

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8511845]LA Kings

Bet you really like Mike Richards.

We just keep repeating the same points over and over on this one. So, lets approach this from a different angle. If Luther was simply trying to portray the meaning of the Romans passage, could you do me a favor and demonstrate me an argument that a reasonable person (right or wrong) could see how the meaning was in the Pauline passage?

Luther talks about it, in part in his letter on translation, which you referenced in the other thread.

For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

Thomas Aquinas, though I know you will dissent as to his meaning: “Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law”

Victorinus: “For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification.” And “But only faith in Christ is salvation for us”

Augustine: “Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).”

And the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says:

10.Paul sets forth the gospel as the power of God for salvation of the person who has fallen under the power of sin, as the message that proclaims that “the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith” (Rom 1:16f) and that grants “justification” (Rom 3:21-31). He proclaims Christ as “our righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30), applying to the risen Lord what Jeremiah proclaimed about God himself (Jer 23:6). In Christ’s death and resurrection all dimensions of his saving work have their roots for he is “our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). All human beings are in need of God’s righteousness, “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23; cf. Rom 1:18-3:20; 11:32; Gal 3:22). In Galatians (3:6) and Romans (4:3-9), Paul understands Abraham’s faith (Gen 15:6) as faith in the God who justifies the sinner (Rom 4:5) and calls upon the testimony of the Old Testament to undergird his gospel that this righteousness will be reckoned to all who, like Abraham, trust in God’s promise. "For the righteous will live by faith (Hab 2:4; cf. Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17). In Paul’s letters, God’s righteousness is also God’s power for those who have faith (Rom 1:16f; 2 Cor 5:21). In Christ he makes it our righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). Justification becomes ours through Christ Jesus “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith” (Rom 3:25; see 3:21-28). “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works” (Eph 2:8f).

In that it was for the Roman Church only? First off, the Oriental Orthodox are a little different, because the history of the schism is different. Now, as far as the Eastern Orthodox traditions, I am not aware that they chalenge any of our Canon, just that they take on a little more.

No, they don’t. And that is why I say Lutherans need to take great care regarding the D-C’s, not to completely dispose of them, but to use and consider them. However, if the CC is to be consistent, it seems they might condemn additional books when they are considered canon, if in fact the Canon of Trent (and Hippo, etc) is the canon. Why is more somehow ok, but less is not?

Your right that he wasn’t a Luther ally, but his work was much in response to Luther. My point was that you have to get to Luther to see these chalanges to the Bible made again. Trent had to re-affirm the Bible because Luther made such challenges, and the good Cardinal was just showing up as a reflection of the time. Remember that the Cardinal does not have Papal infalibility.

And this, for me, is the real issue. The canon, so far as I know, was never set within the 7 general councils of the early Church, and we nor the Orthodox accept infallibility (ex cathedra) of the pope declared by the CC without, again, general council.

Jon

 

[hockeyfan]

Bet you really like Mike Richards.

So far, but being a Kings fan is a bit like being a battered wife. A party of me is still waiting for everything to go wrong. That being said, I was thrilled by the trade.

Luther talks about it, in part in his letter on translation, which you referenced in the other thread.

I concede that other passages in the Bible can be interpreted to argue for Sola Scriptura. When Luther makes that case, it is fine for him to argue on faith alone. I am letting go of the fact that I can cite other scriptures saying otherwise, and just addressing the intellectual honesty of Luther. But, I see a major hole in that argument. Nowhere does he say it is present in Romans chapter 3. He had to refer to other scriptures.

Thomas Aquinas, though I know you will dissent as to his meaning: “Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law”

Salvation starts from faith, the works follow. That is why James says that faith without works are dead. A believer with real faith will have works. So, I do not take issue to St. Thomas Aquinas’s quote there.

Victorinus: “For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification.” And “But only faith in Christ is salvation for us”

I am not that aware of that particular saint, so I did a search on him. Forgive me if I make any inaccuracies in this point. He was pre-Hippo for one thing, so the debate was still open. Also, some of his works seem to have been finally declared apocrypha. So, I am not too concerned with that quote.

Augustine: “Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).”

First, he was also pre-Hippo, though he is a stronger source because of his importance in the councils. Here, when St. Augustine says “if it is not dead” he is clearly referring to James 2:14-26 where it says…

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You see here, when St. Augustine separates the dead faith from the live faith, it is not a case for Sola Scriptura.

And the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says:

I don’t have an issue with that declaration, but it must be remembered that it is not covered by Papal Infallibility. That being said, as I stated earlier on this post on your quote of St. Thomas Aquinas, salvation starts with faith. Though the journey does not end with faith.

No, they don’t. And that is why I say Lutherans need to take great care regarding the D-C’s, not to completely dispose of them, but to use and consider them. However, if the CC is to be consistent, it seems they might condemn additional books when they are considered canon, if in fact the Canon of Trent (and Hippo, etc) is the canon. Why is more somehow ok, but less is not?

And this, for me, is the real issue. The canon, so far as I know, was never set within the 7 general councils of the early Church, and we nor the Orthodox accept infallibility (ex cathedra) of the pope declared by the CC without, again, general council.

Jon

No, who don’t? On your point about Lutherans accepting the D-C’s, that is very fair.

On your point about the Roman Catholics, your point is also fair. That being said, my case on saying the Eastern churches only have extra books and don’t deny the ones in the Roman Catholic Bible was not made to say they are less wrong. Arguing over the acceptance of books like 3 Maccabees is another debate, but lets just say I believe in Papal Infallibility.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I could be wrong, as often happens, but I beleive that the council of trent establish what the minimun number of books in the cannon are. It is my understanding and I forget were I read this that it does not say that the extened cannon of say the EO or OO could not be used by the Catholic Church just that use must use at least those in the Cannon as layed out by Trent.

In other words the books such as maccabees 3 could be included or not but book 1 and 2 must be.

 

[CopticChristian]

I could be wrong, as often happens, but I beleive that the council of trent establish what the minimun number of books in the cannon are. It is my understanding and I forget were I read this that it does not say that the extened cannon of say the EO or OO could not be used by the Catholic Church just that use must use at least those in the Cannon as layed out by Trent.

In other words the books such as maccabees 3 could be included or not but book 1 and 2 must be.

Gotta love the Orthodox…

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

Strictly Speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church. At least not as we commonly think of the Bible as az single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”.

Instead the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter"s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume – usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated – placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the changer"s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter"s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities.

The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is NOT Based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.

Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative “canon” listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).

No wonder when Luther went to the Orthodox looking for sympathy he was rejected.

 

[JonNC]

=hockeyfan;8522147]So far, but being a Kings fan is a bit like being a battered wife. A party of me is still waiting for everything to go wrong. That being said, I was thrilled by the trade.

Alas, I don’t think Richards will dissapoint. The biggest problem ISTM wasn’t his performance, but the locker room tension with Pronger.

I concede that other passages in the Bible can be interpreted to argue for Sola Scriptura. When Luther makes that case, it is fine for him to argue on faith alone. I am letting go of the fact that I can cite other scriptures saying otherwise, and just addressing the intellectual honesty of Luther. But, I see a major hole in that argument. Nowhere does he say it is present in Romans chapter 3. He had to refer to other scriptures.

Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do, look at the whole body of scripture? And keeping that in mind, Lutherans need to look at James, and understand what is being said there.

Salvation starts from faith, the works follow. That is why James says that faith without works are dead. A believer with real faith will have works. So, I do not take issue to St. Thomas Aquinas’s quote there.

This is very Lutheran (and I would claim Catholic) of you to say. Luther also says that a faith that is not active is a dead faith, and a dead faith is not a saving faith.

I am not that aware of that particular saint, so I did a search on him. Forgive me if I make any inaccuracies in this point. He was pre-Hippo for one thing, so the debate was still open. Also, some of his works seem to have been finally declared apocrypha. So, I am not too concerned with that quote.

First, he was also pre-Hippo, though he is a stronger source because of his importance in the councils. Here, when St. Augustine says “if it is not dead” he is clearly referring to James 2:14-26 where it says…

You see here, when St. Augustine separates the dead faith from the live faith, it is not a case for Sola Scriptura.

And so do Lutherans. We say that we access justification by faith alone, but that faith is never alone.

I don’t have an issue with that declaration, but it must be remembered that it is not covered by Papal Infallibility. That being said, as I stated earlier on this post on your quote of St. Thomas Aquinas, salvation starts with faith. Though the journey does not end with faith.

Agreed.

No, who don’t? On your point about Lutherans accepting the D-C’s, that is very fair.

On your point about the Roman Catholics, your point is also fair. That being said, my case on saying the Eastern churches only have extra books and don’t deny the ones in the Roman Catholic Bible was not made to say they are less wrong. Arguing over the acceptance of books like 3 Maccabees is another debate, but lets just say I believe in Papal Infallibility.

As well you should, as a Catholic.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

We were talking on the “Who founded your church” thread, and veered off topic, so I wanted to make another thread to discuss this.

Right, but my problem is not that Luther translated the Bible into German. My problem is that he included a word that did not exist in the Greek.

For those of you new to this conversation, Jon was pointing out as evidence that the Eastern Orthodox churches use a different Canon as evidence that the Council’s of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome did not settle the matter.

Anyways, the fact that they do not accept Papal supremacy is paramount, because if you don’t accept it, you couldn’t really call yourself Roman Catholic. The Canon was already determined in three councils to be inerrant, what makes Trent so different that it is the one to set in stone the books in the Bible? Lets go with your point for a second. None of those churches deny any of the books the Roman Church accepts, they just have a few extra writings. In that sense, none of the Deuterocanon was in question.

Yes, but I asked to provide someone who was pre-Luther. I gave you a 900 year period to find one. I did a small amount of research to find out he was from the same time, though he was born in the late 1400’s. So, I will ask you again. If the debate was still open, who between 600 and 1500 was challenging the Canon?

Historically there have been 2 great schisms in the Church. Oriental Schism & Orthodox Schism. I see very little discussion about the Oriental Churches on these sites. They too are part of the Church…

The schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of Christendom occurred in the 5th century. Oriental Orthodoxy is the faith of those Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the First Council of Ephesus. They rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

This site has the Canon of the Oriental Orthodox Church…

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm

at the bottom of this page, same site you can see comparisons of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant canon with discussion.

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon.html

The second Schism with Eastern Orthodoxy split on many issues and I don’t want to get into that however it was based on theology and words…

The Canon of the Oriental is larger than the Canon of the Orthodox. The Catholic Canon is smaller than either and the Protestant Bible/canon is the smallest.

Protestants unlike the Oriental and Orthodox have no authority to claim any understanding of the canon today. The Oriental Orthodox dialogue with Rome seeking communion, The Orthodox dialoge with Rome and we hope for communion…A leader from each could speak to the issue of the canon as they are united on the Eucharist and other Sacraments…

Protestants would be represented by a Bible society with a printing press…hopelessly divided on much…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Gotta love the Orthodox…

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

Strictly Speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church. At least not as we commonly think of the Bible as az single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”.

Instead the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter"s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume – usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated – placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the changer"s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter"s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities.

The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is NOT Based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.

Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative “canon” listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).

No wonder when Luther went to the Orthodox looking for sympathy he was rejected.

Thank you for some detail.

 

[hockeyfan]

Alas, I don’t think Richards will dissapoint. The biggest problem ISTM wasn’t his performance, but the locker room tension with Pronger.

Agreed.

Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do, look at the whole body of scripture? And keeping that in mind, Lutherans need to look at James, and understand what is being said there.

Yes, and if he were doing a interpretation of the whole New Testament, I would agree. But, when he writes it into a translation, it becomes problematic.

This is very Lutheran (and I would claim Catholic) of you to say. Luther also says that a faith that is not active is a dead faith, and a dead faith is not a saving faith.

Agreed.

And so do Lutherans. We say that we access justification by faith alone, but that faith is never alone.

And the Lutherans have it right on that. That problem arises with other Protestant factions.

As well you should, as a Catholic.

Jon

It looks like we are finding common ground.

 

[hockeyfan]

Gotta love the Orthodox…

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

Strictly Speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church. At least not as we commonly think of the Bible as az single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”.

Instead the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter"s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume – usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated – placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the changer"s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter"s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities.

The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is NOT Based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.

Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative “canon” listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).

No wonder when Luther went to the Orthodox looking for sympathy he was rejected.

I am still reading your sources, but I have to thank you. That is a lot of good historical context for the Eastern perspective on the matter.

 

[ajcstr]

ok, so I have been in and out of these canon discussions.

My observation is… The Latin Vulgate was written somewhere in the year 400. It was commissioned by Pope Damasus I. As far as I know (and I’d be the first to admit that I don’t know much) the books that were in that Bible are the exact same as the books in my Catholic Bible today. I don’t know (see my note regarding what I know) of any other collection of books that was used in the Catholic Church since the Vulgate was produced. Does that not mean that the canon was pretty much set by 400? Can go back and forth as to what councils said what, but the Vulgate was THE Bible for what, 1200 years ??

The Orthodox today recognize a different OT than the Catholic Church. So did the “east” reject this Bible (Vulgate) or did they not acknowledge the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome as early as 400? They did not schism until 700-1000 depending on who you talk to so I am not sure what went on in between as far as Scripture.

PS - Richards/Carter had to go ! … One step back …

 

[CopticChristian]

ok, so I have been in and out of these canon discussions.

My observation is… The Latin Vulgate was written somewhere in the year 400. It was commissioned by Pope Damasus I. As far as I know (and I’d be the first to admit that I don’t know much) the books that were in that Bible are the exact same as the books in my Catholic Bible today. I don’t know (see my note regarding what I know) of any other collection of books that was used in the Catholic Church since the Vulgate was produced. Does that not mean that the canon was pretty much set by 400? Can go back and forth as to what councils said what, but the Vulgate was THE Bible for what, 1200 years ??

The Orthodox today recognize a different OT than the Catholic Church. So did the “east” reject this Bible (Vulgate) or did they not acknowledge the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome as early as 400? They did not schism until 700-1000 depending on who you talk to so I am not sure what went on in between as far as Scripture.

PS - Richards/Carter had to go ! … One step back …

The Septuagint is not rejected by the Oriental, Orthodox or Catholic.

 

[Publisher]

The Septuagint is not rejected by the Oriental, Orthodox or Catholic.

I believe his point was that not all of you who claim “apostolic” ties uses the same canon…not translation…some of the books accepted by Orthodox are rejected as canon by the Catholic church and they are not inlcuded in Catholic Bibles…Protestants don’t reject the LXX either…they just don’t believe all the books included in the LXX are canon…as do Catholics. The Catholic church does not accept all the books in the LXX as scripture I believe was his point…correct me if wrong.

 

[hockeyfan]

ok, so I have been in and out of these canon discussions.

My observation is… The Latin Vulgate was written somewhere in the year 400. It was commissioned by Pope Damasus I. As far as I know (and I’d be the first to admit that I don’t know much) the books that were in that Bible are the exact same as the books in my Catholic Bible today. I don’t know (see my note regarding what I know) of any other collection of books that was used in the Catholic Church since the Vulgate was produced. Does that not mean that the canon was pretty much set by 400? Can go back and forth as to what councils said what, but the Vulgate was THE Bible for what, 1200 years ??

The Orthodox today recognize a different OT than the Catholic Church. So did the “east” reject this Bible (Vulgate) or did they not acknowledge the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome as early as 400? They did not schism until 700-1000 depending on who you talk to so I am not sure what went on in between as far as Scripture.

PS - Richards/Carter had to go ! … One step back …

I may be mistaken, but I don’t think St. Jerome’s Vulgate is exactly like the Catholic Bible as it is today.

On the Richards/Carter thing, I think Philly made a mistake. Bryzgalov is not worth both of those players, and when you consider the cap friendly contracts of Carter/Richards Philly is loosing. The X factor is how Schenn will develop, but at best he is equal to Richards. Even if the rumors about Richards and Pronger’s issues are true, I would still have stuck with Richards because; 1) Pronger’s career will soon be on the decline due to age, 2) Richard’s bleeds Philly Orange, 3) and finally the salary cap issues will make Richards better in the long run. I digress.

 

[ajcstr]

I may be mistaken, but I don’t think St. Jerome’s Vulgate is exactly like the Catholic Bible as it is today.

On the Richards/Carter thing, I think Philly made a mistake. Bryzgalov is not worth both of those players, and when you consider the cap friendly contracts of Carter/Richards Philly is loosing. The X factor is how Schenn will develop, but at best he is equal to Richards. Even if the rumors about Richards and Pronger’s issues are true, I would still have stuck with Richards because; 1) Pronger’s career will soon be on the decline due to age, 2) Richard’s bleeds Philly Orange, 3) and finally the salary cap issues will make Richards better in the long run. I digress.

I’m pretty sure the Vulgate had the 7 books in a separate section, but it contained the same OT books we have in the Bible today. Would be very interested if this was not the case.

Im not saying Flyers got value for Richards/Carter, I’m just saying they had to go, I think it goes beyond Pronger, I think their attitude was the issue. I do think there were issues with Laviolette and then it becomes one or the other.

 

[amber_lux]

As far as I know (and I’d be the first to admit that I don’t know much) the books that were in that Bible are the exact same as the books in my Catholic Bible today.

Anglican Bibles are closer to Jerome’s Vulgate than Catholic Bibles. Both omit books that were in Jerome’s Vulgate.

Does that not mean that the canon was pretty much set by 400?

Well, there is the book (note:singular) that Luther threw out of the canon. A book that is so obscure that 99.9999% of Lutherans and Catholics have never heard of it, much less read it.

There also is the entire debate about the Peshitta, which Rome won through the use of superior sword play. Not theology, but the literal spilling of blood and guts.

but the Vulgate was THE Bible for what, 1200 years ?

Technically, the Vulgate is still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vulgate has never been the official Bible of the Orthodox or Oriental Christian Church.

The Orthodox today recognize a different OT than the Catholic Church. So did the “east” reject this Bible (Vulgate) or did they not acknowledge the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome as early as 400?

Orthodox Christianity does not have the same pathological need as Catholic Christianity to define each and every thing. It prefers to emphasis the mystery of Christ. It can accept that in one country, one book might be considered canonical, whilst in another country, that book is merely considered to be “good reading”, and in a third country, that book might be completely ignored.

The Bishop of Rome was never the leader of Orthodox Christianity. He was a representative of Western Christianity, until he chose to break with his superiors, because of his pride, and his point blank refusal to accept their guidance, which, as bishop, was canonically required to do,. His disobedience, and refusal to adhere to canon law, resulted in the catholic church wandering into schism, teaching heresies that could only result in further heresies.

Amber

 

[JonNC]

Well, there is the book (note:singular) that Luther threw out of the canon. A book that is so obscure that 99.9999% of Lutherans and Catholics have never heard of it, much less read it.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The Bishop of Rome was never the leader of Orthodox Christianity. He was a representative of Western Christianity, until he chose to break with his superiors, because of his pride, and his point blank refusal to accept their guidance, which, as bishop, was canonically required to do,. His disobedience, and refusal to adhere to canon law, resulted in the catholic church wandering into schism, teaching heresies that could only result in further heresies.

Amber

And you have documentation to back up the outrageous statements made here?
Exactly which Bishops are the supposed superiors to the Bixhop of Rome aka the Pope?
Not even the Eastern Orthodox make the claim that other Bishops were His superior so I have no isea were you would get this idea. Aslo do you even have any idea as to what the events of the great schism are?