P
Pound_Coolish
Guest
This seems absurd, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing somebody would just make up. What’s the story here?
- Status
C
ccmcmg
Guest
Ummm, please tell me what church there was before Roman Catholic, that would have professed the New Testament.
Of course it’s made up. What ‘Roman Catholic’ schism? I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That’s us!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Somebody’s confused. I believe that the Synod of Hippo took place in AD 393 and they approved a canon of 73 books. Ask whoever gave you the ‘snippet’ to cite his/her sources. The burden of proof is on them.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
The Orthodox Churches have some additional books in their Bible - 3 and 4 Maccabees, for example. Perhaps whoever wrote this is using a distorted memory of the Orthodox canon.
However, the Catholic - Orthodox schism was final only in the 11th century AD, and before that, both presumably used the same canon. If a practising Orthodox Christian could weigh in, we might have an answer.
D
dmar198
Guest
It is historically incorrect, but we can make a few general inferences about what the author is referring to:
(1) He is probably Eastern Orthodox, because some branches of Orthodoxy have a larger Canon than the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are more likely to make historical arguments than Protestants are.
(2) He is probably referring to the Council of Hippo, which occurred in 393 A.D.
(3) The text of its decision, according to a Catholic Answers tract, is this: “But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393])."
That totals up to 44 books by my count. Add the 27 of the New Testament and you get 71. It is missing Lamentations and Baruch, which were often considered chapters of Jeremiah at that time, which brings us to 73, the number in the Catholic canon, but well short of the 78 the author claims. (Maybe there’s something more that the “…” is covering up?) So I don’t know where he gets the number 78.
(4) The “Roman Catholic schism” probably refers either to the schism of 1054, in which we Catholics say the Orthodox broke away, but some Orthodox argue that it’s the other way around, or the Photian Schism in the ninth century, in which the Pope excommunicated Bishop Photius, whom the Orthodox consider a saint and to which many of them trace the permanent separation of the two Churches.
(5) There may be a confusion about the two books of Ezra mentioned in the text of the Council. They refer to Ezra and Nehemiah, but some claim they are actually 1 and 2 Esdras, which are apocryphal. If the author was making that confusion, or thinking that the author was using “Ezra, two books” to refer BOTH to Ezra/Nehemiah AND 1/2 Esdras, that might get him up to 75 books, closer to the 78 he is searching for. But that would require him to make a series of mistakes, including the fact that Ezra is clearly a different book name than Esdras.
V
VanSensei
Guest
Sounds like an Orthodox argument. There is no universal Orthodox canon when it comes to Scripture. Ethiopian Orthodox Churches, for example, have far more than anyone else.
P
powerofk
Guest
Which may mean that instead of Eastern Orthodox, the author might be Oriental Orthodox (i.e., Coptic, Ethiopian, etc. - from one of the churches considered Non-Chalcedonian). I know that at least some of these churches consider books such as the Book of Enoch to be canonical.
J
JM3
Guest
P
Pound_Coolish
Guest
Okay, I asked, and here’s the source.
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
Supposedly, it’s a Catholic one.
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
Supposedly, it’s a Catholic one.
D
dmar198
Guest
That is a Catholic source, but it doesn’t say the Church hacked off some of the Scriptures. It mentions a list of the books of Scripture once, in Canon 24, where it is repeating a list that was made at a Church Council in the city of Carthage, Africa, in 419 A.D. That list is identical to the list made at the Council of Hippo 26 years before (in 393 A.D.), they didn’t hack off a single book. The Church’s Canon has never changed and you can find proof of that in the Early Church at this website: catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon
G
Gloria_de_G
Guest
Dear Pound, I took this from New Advent website, you can click the quote if you want to go:
, does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian bodies at present. Like the Old Testament, the New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books. The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark’s Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus (22:43-44); the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages. The Catholic New Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent
Hope this helps,
Gloria
.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
The question sounds rhetorical to me. “Hacking off” is not a neutral term. To answer rhetorically, I would say, yes, books were hacked off. If we consider the entire body of works that various groups of Christians used at one time or another, then a number of them were rejected. A prominent example would be the Shepherd of Hermas. It is bound into the Codex Vaticanus, but has been rejected as canonical. Conversely, Revelation was “hacked onto” the canon, since it was adopted later. Since many of these books were likely known to other groups, they were also hacked off by them, too. A good gardener prunes off unproductive branches.
P
Pound_Coolish
Guest
Oldtimer, I used the term “hacked” being it wouldn’t look so good if the Church infallibly approved a number of books and then changed their mind. (From the responses so far, it doesn’t look that way, unsurprisingly.)
What exactly do you mean that some books were disposed of? I realize there are many books that never mad it to the official Bible in the first place. But that’s different.
What exactly do you mean that some books were disposed of? I realize there are many books that never mad it to the official Bible in the first place. But that’s different.
E
edwest2
Guest
M
MommaduckofMany
Guest
I agree with what was posted above…Some is how we divide the books. Just as numbering system may be different than the Protestants (ex the ten commandments). Another is that the Oriental Orthodox (Eritrean, Ethiopian, Coptic, etc) are not the same as Eastern Orthodox and will have their own canon.
There is a good chart here, halfway down.
“distorted memory” is a bit unkind. We come from opposite perspectives irt the Schism. However, I would never accuse the Catholics of “hacking” at the Scriptures (and I believe it was unkind for someone else to say so…I think though, we can honestly and factually state that that is what happened in Protestantism, but later in Protestantism). We came to the Canon TOGETHER as ONE Church…not as “Rome”…but rather a collaborated effort from all the Jurisdictions.
Brigid
There is a good chart here, halfway down.
“distorted memory” is a bit unkind. We come from opposite perspectives irt the Schism. However, I would never accuse the Catholics of “hacking” at the Scriptures (and I believe it was unkind for someone else to say so…I think though, we can honestly and factually state that that is what happened in Protestantism, but later in Protestantism). We came to the Canon TOGETHER as ONE Church…not as “Rome”…but rather a collaborated effort from all the Jurisdictions.
Brigid
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
Pound Coolish, I was particularly thinking of the New Testament Apocrypha. A number of the books had a wide circulation. Another book, in addition to the Shepherd of Hermas, would be the Acts of Thecla. It was popular, especially among women, into the Middle Ages. The Nag Hammadi collection was apparently important enough to survive several centuries into the Christian era. The Apocalypse of Paul was referenced by Origen.
The Didache was another one that was accepted by some of the Early Church Fathers.
The Didache was another one that was accepted by some of the Early Church Fathers.
A
Abu
Guest
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.
E
ezeekl
Guest
But did the church, as you say, “…infallibly approved a number of books and then changed their mind.” The article that you referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia is for the Council of Carthage in 419 AD. This was NOT NOT] a general council of the entire church but rather a local synod of African bishops. It, therefore, enjoys no infallibility as you claim. These synods went on then and still go on today in all parts of the world. In the USA the synod is called the USCCB [United States Council of Catholic Bishops] and it has no more ability to infallibly declare anything than any other local synod of bishops. So your entire premise that the Council of Carthage was a general council empowered with infallibility is totally false.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Catholic Bibles are shorter than Orthodox Bibles.
E
ezeekl
Guest
But longer than the abridged protestant bibles. The Orthodox still can’t agree on a canon whereas the Western Church has had the same canon since the first Bible in 400 AD.
- Status