Deuterocanon question

[Rightlydivide]

I disagree. I submit that the Eastern Orthodox do not have a canon, at least a defined canon as does the Catholic Church and the protestant denominations. From the earliest times, the Eastern Church, which used the LXX, was undecided about the Apocrypha: some Greek Fathers quoted from these books; others preferred to follow solely the books accepted by the Jews. The matter of the Apocrypha was raised in the Trullan Council at Constantinople in 692, but no binding conclusions were reached.

The Synod of Jerusalem[1] in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox Canon which is the same as the one decided by the Council of Trent but adds Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manasseh. The Greek Orthodox generally consider the Septuagint to be divinely inspired.

However, because the Jerusalem Council was a “Regional Council” and neither Ecumenical nor pan-Orthodox, its decrees were not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches. Although there has been no official acceptance of the canon outlined at Jerusalem, all editions of the Bible published by the Greek Orthodox Church include the books selected in 1672, though today 4 Maccabees is often placed in a separate section or excluded. So despite their all inclusiveness they really have no defined canon. And I do think they would disagree on the definition of the word “canon” as we use it also. From what I understand in Orthodox circles the word ‘canon’ is not to be equated with ‘inspired’.

But my point stands whether I have overstated (which is possible) or incorrectly used canon as it relates to the Orthodox.
In my estimation

 

[cfrancis]

I do not know why you find them contradictory. So I am not sure which part to elaborate on.

On the one hand you assert, “a canon that stays the same until around the 4th century and it expands quickly and unevenly” and then state, “The LXX and its exact contents circa 30 AD are unknown.”
How early do you see a firm LXX canon?

 

[Rightlydivide]

On the one hand you assert, “a canon that stays the same until around the 4th century and it expands quickly and unevenly” and then state, “The LXX and its exact contents circa 30 AD are unknown.”
How early do you see a firm LXX canon?

Okay thanks.
The last statement is easy. Doing the easy one first naturally. We simply have nothing from that era in terms of statements or actual finds to indicate how widespread or what not were included concerning Greek translations.
My first statement not as easy but here goes
But we do have statements from people about what books were considered inspired (I recognize that another post may have the need to differentiate be a little clearer) from the 2nd through the 4th century. Those statements, not specific to a Hebrew or Greek translation, indicate a smaller canon. This changes quite a bit starting 390 AD in some areas.
Maybe I am being too brief

 

[cfrancis]

Okay thanks.
The last statement is easy. Doing the easy one first naturally. We simply have nothing from that era in terms of statements or actual finds to indicate how widespread or what not were included concerning Greek translations.
My first statement not as easy but here goes
But we do have statements from people about what books were considered inspired (I recognize that another post may have the need to differentiate be a little clearer) from the 2nd through the 4th century. Those statements, not specific to a Hebrew or Greek translation, indicate a smaller canon. This changes quite a bit starting 390 AD in some areas.
Maybe I am being too brief

OK, I see more clearly, and I am familiar (though not as familiar as you) with the ECF lists of accepted books. If I recall correctly (and there is no reason to believe I won’t be corrected!) those lists weren’t identical.
Seems the evidence hovers between the 66-73 mark, eh?

 

[JonNC]

What I think matters is why Luther chose not to follow 1100 years of christian tradition of including the Deuterocanonical writings. We know Luther had issues with other books of the canon, the epistle of James for an example. His issues were based on theological grounds, meaning they contradicted Luther’s theological positions. In my opinion Luther was exercising what I call 'Burger king christianity" You know the commercial that touts, '… have it your way at Burger King". But then that was Luther being Luther.

And again, here is the issue. He did include them, despite the doubts of others and his own. Luther’s bible had 74 books!
How far back does the dispute about James and other NT books go? Eusebius!

Prior to Trent, exercising one’s opinion regarding the canon only seems to be a problem (for some) when it involves Luther. That’s “Burger King” history, for it was a common and accepted practice.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As the link states, observance of Sukkot may have been shifted to Hanukkah. That does not mean it wasn’t Hanukkah.

Read how a Jew translates it (emphasis in original):
Jewish New Testament
Yochanan 10:22
Then came Chanukkah in Yerushalayim. It was winter.

Notice also the second part of the verse says, “It was winter.” Sukkot is celebrated in autumn (late September to early October on the Gregorian calendar). Hanukkah, however, is (or can be) celebrated in winter.

I think what the link was saying is that during the exceptional circumstances of the Maccabean Revolt, that Sukkot in that instance may have been shifted to what we now think of as Hannukah.

The Greek word translated above as “winter” actually means “rainy season”–we are dealing with a Mediterranean climate (not a designation of four seasons that equate to specific months of the year like most of the Northern Hemisphere) and certainly Sukkot can fall during the rainy season, although it is a bit unusual.

The confusion also lies in the fact that Sukkot celebrates the dedication (Hanukkah) of the first temple–see 1Kings 8:2 and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanim.

And of course the other errors in the article don’t exactly add to its credibility.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jamnia was a center for Jewish rabbinical scholarship. It hosted a highly regarded rabbinical school as well as what has been called a ‘Great Sanhedrin’. About ten other locations in Israel have hosted ‘Great Sanhedrins’. A great Sanhedrin was convened in Jamnia twice following the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Many of the rabbi’s and members of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, with the permission of the Romans, came to Jamnia. It is unclear exactly what was done to the canon at Jamnia although what evidence we have today suggests there were discussions amongst the rabbi’s on many books and with that many opinions on whether a writing was acceptable as inspired. Oddly enough most of these discussions were of writings that were considered then to be canonical and remain so today. Apparently no list was drawn up of canonoical or non canonical writings but there were lists of writings which ‘made the hands unclean’ and those that didn’t. Oddly enough those writings which ‘made the hands unclean’ were what we would call canonical. The word canon or canonical was not used at that time and would only come into use later by early christian writers to describe writings that were to be used in the ‘Canon’ of the Liturgy or used in the public worship of the church. The word ‘canon’ was not equated with denoting an inspired writing. That would only come much later.

I’m not sure where this information is from, but most credible scholars (both Jewish and Christian) would point out that these are conclusions are drawn from the Talmud, which certainly doesn’t describe a council or a meeting to discuss the canon, and further, constitutes a source hundreds of years later than the described debate–i.e., the debate about texts that make the hands unclean. Some Talmud scholars have gone so far as to say that the whole idea of Jamnia after the final Jewish revolt (roughly the second century forward) is entirely nostalgic legend.

However, the question has to be asked where the Deuterocanonical writings came from. The answer is they were in the Septuagint which the Church accepted as the Old Testament. So how did they get into the Septuagint? The story is that 70 translators in Alexandria, Egypt translated the Jewish scriptures from Hebrew into Greek and that became known as the Septuagint or LXX. The story also goes that the scrolls containing the Jewish writings that the translators based their translations on were sent to Alexandria from Jerusalem. Absent any other information it must therefore be logical that the deuterocanonical writings came to be in the Septuagint because they were in those scrolls sent to Alexandria from Jerusalem.

Because the variant quality and inconsistency of translation in the LXX, most scholars believe that the legend of the 70 refers only to the Pentateuch and that other works were translated over a much longer period of time. Works such as I and II Maccabees were originally written in Greek, so of course they would not have needed to be translated. Also, the Septuagint would have only been accepted by Christians as the Old Testament in the Greek speaking world–i.e., roughly the bounds of the Roman Empire. Aramaic speaking Christians (outside the Roman Empire) would not have been able to read the Septuagint.

All of this takes place before Christ is born so that in the beginning of the Christian era there is two versions of the Jewish scriptures one in Greek and one in Hebrew/ Aramaic.

Actually, by the time of Jesus, there were probably at least three: the Hebrew scriptures, the Greek translation (or various Greek translations) and various Aramaic/Syriac translations. The majority of early Christians probably read the Old Testament in Aramaic/Syriac. And also, we can compare the texts found at the Dead Sea (Qumran) to other existing ancient manuscripts. We know of course they were not the same, but the texts found at Qumran mainly follow the Hebrew (Massoretic text) the majority of the time, but sometimes attest to variant readings in the LXX.

What we don’t know is whether they were the same. We do know that Jerome initially favored the Jewish scriptures which by his time did not contain the deuterocanonical writings. Jerome was highly educated for his time and his education came from Jewish rabbi’s not from Greeks. That he would continue in the loine of thought of his Jewish educators and thus favor the Jewish version is quite reasonable. However, Jerome did change his mind on the deuteros after hearing the arguments, maybe for the first time, presented for their inclusion. So sometime in the approx 500 year period between the creation of the LXX and Jerome, the Jewish scriptures lost seven writings.

Jerome’s understanding of Hebrew seems quite mediocre once you look closely at how he translates the underlying Hebrew text. And also recall that there really was no such thing as a book (codex) until around the time of Jerome, so the idea of a bound, authoritative, complete set of biblical books didn’t probably exist until about his time. I’m not sure how you can say seven books were “lost.” And Jews/early Christians that didn’t read Greek wouldn’t have read Maccabees in any event.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
However, the question has to be asked where the Deuterocanonical writings came from. The answer is they were in the Septuagint which the Church accepted as the Old Testament. So how did they get into the Septuagint? The story is that 70 translators in Alexandria, Egypt translated the Jewish scriptures from Hebrew into Greek and that became known as the Septuagint or LXX. The story also goes that the scrolls containing the Jewish writings that the translators based their translations on were sent to Alexandria from Jerusalem. Absent any other information it must therefore be logical that the deuterocanonical writings came to be in the Septuagint because they were in those scrolls sent to Alexandria from Jerusalem.

Because the variant quality and inconsistency of translation in the LXX, most scholars believe that the legend of the 70 refers only to the Pentateuch and that other works were translated over a much longer period of time. Works such as I and II Maccabees were originally written in Greek, so of course they would not have needed to be translated. Also, the Septuagint would have only been accepted by Christians as the Old Testament in the Greek speaking world–i.e., roughly the bounds of the Roman Empire. Aramaic speaking Christians (outside the Roman Empire) would not have been able to read the Septuagint.

This doesn’t trell us where the Deuteros came from if not from the original source material for the Septuagint. Also where is the proof that I andd II Maccabees were written in Greek? Seems to me we are back to the Jamnia Council because that supposedly was the criteria used to delete them from the Jewish scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
All of this takes place before Christ is born so that in the beginning of the Christian era there is two versions of the Jewish scriptures one in Greek and one in Hebrew/ Aramaic.

Actually, by the time of Jesus, there were probably at least three: the Hebrew scriptures, the Greek translation (or various Greek translations) and various Aramaic/Syriac translations. The majority of early Christians probably read the Old Testament in Aramaic/Syriac. And also, we can compare the texts found at the Dead Sea (Qumran) to other existing ancient manuscripts. We know of course they were not the same, but the texts found at Qumran mainly follow the Hebrew (Massoretic text) the majority of the time, but sometimes attest to variant readings in the LXX.

Again you tell us nothing of how the deuteros became part of the Septuagint if not from the original source documents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
What we don’t know is whether they were the same. We do know that Jerome initially favored the Jewish scriptures which by his time did not contain the deuterocanonical writings. Jerome was highly educated for his time and his education came from Jewish rabbi’s not from Greeks. That he would continue in the loine of thought of his Jewish educators and thus favor the Jewish version is quite reasonable. However, Jerome did change his mind on the deuteros after hearing the arguments, maybe for the first time, presented for their inclusion. So sometime in the approx 500 year period between the creation of the LXX and Jerome, the Jewish scriptures lost seven writings.

Jerome’s understanding of Hebrew seems quite mediocre once you look closely at how he translates the underlying Hebrew text. And also recall that there really was no such thing as a book (codex) until around the time of Jerome, so the idea of a bound, authoritative, complete set of biblical books didn’t probably exist until about his time. I’m not sure how you can say seven books were “lost.” And Jews/early Christians that didn’t read Greek wouldn’t have read Maccabees in any event.

No one is arguing whether Jerome’s Vulgate was the first bound codex. The issue is if the deuteros did not come from the source documents for the Septuagint then where did they come from. Outside of any conclusive evidence to the contrary it has to be understood that they were in the Jewish scriptures used as source material for the translation. So let’s stop the Bovine Scatology and cut to the chase.

 

[Subrosa]

No they do not. Eastern Orthdox and Oriental Orthodox have a larger canon. A local regional synod did not have the authority to settle a canon. Other parts of Christianity recognize a different canon than the Catholic one.
I am sure I know quite a bit more about the topic than you. So I will pass on the homework assignment…

What is interesting is that you confirm exactly what I said in my post, but then use it in a negative argument.

All the churches cited have an equal or larger canon than the Roman Catholic Church. The larger canons use all of the books that the Catholic Church uses. Only Reformation and Post-Reformation churches have a smaller canon. Therefore all the churches stated also have larger canons than Reformation churches.

You cannot support your argument using the canons of the churches cited. The fact that these churches use larger canons establishes the fact that those books were removed by people who did not agree with them over 1500 years after the establishment of Christianity, and by doing so dictated which books were the Word of God.

You cannot say that the Catholic Church is wrong for using a canon of scripture that had been in use since the beginning of Christianity.

Subrosa

 

[ERose]

I think that this thread points out two significant problems we all have whether Catholic, Protestant or Jewish when it comes to the “Canon” of the OT before the 4th century, which are not enough archeological or written information to make an accurate assessment of what was used and because of this there is too much speculation and not enough facts.

Did the Jews in Palestine use the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek translations of the sacred books in their synagogues? We don’t know. All you have is guesses and no facts. Did Jesus quote the Greek or Hebrew in His discourses? We don’t know. All we have is the witness of the Gospels and both are used. Is this because of the original language they were written in or did He actually use those exact quotes? We don’t know.

One witness from the Gospels I find interesting is in the Passion of Jesus when He called out: * “Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And some that stood there and heard, said: This man calleth Elias.* Here Jesus used the Hebrew version of Scripture and yet some of those Jews in the crowd witnessing His passion did not understand Aramaic but rather misinterpreted what He was saying.

Of course the reason for this use of the Hebrew scriptures here could be due to the witness of some of the ECFs that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic because the gospel was directed to the Jews in Jerusalem. Of course this is still all speculation because just do not have enough information.

What I am trying to get at is this. Up until the 4th century there is just not enough information for anyone to make an honest factual statement. Every comment is pure speculation, but so many so-called “bible scholars” preach this stuff as if it is pure fact. That is the reason why I personally have finally given up and have determine that these so-called “scholars” are in the same field as weathermen and that is offering up your best guess. And as such I view their comments and their “findings” with the same grain of salt as I do weathermen.

Then you throw in the “information overload” that is found all over the internet from so many different sources, some credible and others not, and what do you get. A bunch of people lost and confused about what is true and what is not.

Here is what I know for a fact and that is this. There are three primary biblical traditions that have come down to us from the ancients and they are the Vulgate, Septuigint, and the Masoretic texts. The Septuigint obviously impacts the theological development of the Eastern church and the very early Western church. The Vulgate impacted the theology of the Western church from the 4th century on and the early Protestants. The Masoretic texts, the Jewish theology from the 9th century and the Protestants at some point early in their development.

Also I know for a fact that the Bible’s canon developed primarily from what was used in the liturgies of the early particular churches. The Romans set the canon for the West in the 4th century at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus. We do know that this canon became the bare minimum for all early Apostolic churches, with the Eastern, Oriental and some others having a few more books in their canon due to the ancient usage of these additional books in their liturgies. During that time traditional liturgical use was important and normally this tradition was safeguarded at all costs as I have learned in studying the ECFs. If these additional books already had a place in the particular church’s liturgy they would not have been taken out and so they stuck.

It wasn’t until sometime after the Protestant revolt that a shorter Canon was adopted by a Christian group(s). I know that you will say that there are many instances of shorter canons in the ECFs and I would agree with you. But you should also understand that when they are outlining these lists it is from a liturgical perspective and not from a complete Bible in book form.

When you talk about what Jerome thought which there seems to be proof that he latter denied the views that he outline concerning the D-Cs is that that Jerome, even though was a bishop, he did not have final authority concerning the “canon” of the Bible. That was the Pope Damasus and the council of Rome.

Also I find that the majority of people that contest the D-Cs are those that have never read them, which I find sad for they do open up the NT more than just the P-Cs and you see more of the Christian thought in the D-Cs.

God Bless.

 

[SonCatcher]

I think what the link was saying is that during the exceptional circumstances of the Maccabean Revolt, that Sukkot in that instance may have been shifted to what we now think of as Hannukah.

The Greek word translated above as “winter” actually means “rainy season”–we are dealing with a Mediterranean climate (not a designation of four seasons that equate to specific months of the year like most of the Northern Hemisphere) and certainly Sukkot can fall during the rainy season, although it is a bit unusual.

The confusion also lies in the fact that Sukkot celebrates the dedication (Hanukkah) of the first temple–see 1Kings 8:2 and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanim.

And of course the other errors in the article don’t exactly add to its credibility.

The vast majority of scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) equates the Feast of Dedication referenced in John 10:22 with Hanukkah. Here is the definition of “Dedication” from Strong’s concordance (a mainly Protestant source - emphasis added):

G1456
ἐγκαίνια
Neuter plural of a presumed compound from G1722 and G2537 ; {innovatives} that {is} (specifically) renewal (of religious services after the Antiochian interruption): - dedication.

While you have indeed raised a possibility that it may have been a reference to Sukkot, your theory is by no means definitive and runs counter to ecumenical Bible scholarship. So it is interesting, but nothing more.

 

[Prieldedi]

I’m in a discussion about the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. The person I am debating has two problems with these books: 1. The Church Fathers didn’t agree on these books and so they shouldn’t be in the Bible and 2. He says the DC is not quoted in the New Testament and so it isn’t inspired. Of course this is really a problem with Church Authority rather than anything else but he asked me to find where the DC is quoted in the NT. I can handle the first question but am having trouble finding where the DC is quoted. I know it is, I found a source a while back but I can’t seem to find it anymore.

Thanks for the help

Jeff

Perhaps you and the rest of participants would like to look at this:

The Deuterocanonicals

This link contains Bible references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.

The Canon of Scripture…

And this one contains:
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.==> 73 books.
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirming the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I.
The Third Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) reaffirming anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I.
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirming the Canons as defined in previous councils.
The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, which was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible.
The Council of Trent 1546-1565, the longest lasting Council in Church history, called to counter the changes made by Martin Luther.

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps you and the rest of participants would like to look at this:

The Deuterocanonicals

This link contains Bible references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.

The Canon of Scripture…

And this one contains:
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.==> 73 books.
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirming the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I.
The Third Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) reaffirming anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I.
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirming the Canons as defined in previous councils.
The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, which was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible.
The Council of Trent 1546-1565, the longest lasting Council in Church history, called to counter the changes made by Martin Luther.

Yeah I often wondered why the canon was formally defined at Trent and not at the council of Florence [Basel]. Both councils verified the books of the Vulgate but Trent was considered the formal definition and not Florence which occurred 100 years or so prior to Trent. The reason is that not every part of the Council of Florence is considered ecumenical. Florence dealt with the reunification of different Eastern Churches with Rome. A reunification that did not last. At Florence the list of canonical books is found in the 11th session, February 4, 1442 in a document entitled Bull of union with the Copts This document was directed to the Coptic Church and not to the universal church. Thus it was not considered to be ecumenical.

One more thing here, The original purpose of the canon was to identify those writings which were to be used in the Divine Liturgy of the Mass. That is, public worship. The purpose was not to identify those writings that were inspired. So the canon identified writings to be used in public worship while other writings that were suitable for use in private meditation were called apocrypha meaning hidden. Today however, with the influence of protestant worship of scripture that original meaning has been lost.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The vast majority of scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) equates the Feast of Dedication referenced in John 10:22 with Hanukkah. Here is the definition of “Dedication” from Strong’s concordance (a mainly Protestant source - emphasis added):

While you have indeed raised a possibility that it may have been a reference to Sukkot, your theory is by no means definitive and runs counter to ecumenical Bible scholarship. So it is interesting, but nothing more.

That’s fine but then you’d have to explain why Jesus would be going to Jerusalem for Hanukkah. It’s not a pilgrimage festival.

 

[ctkrcia]

That’s fine but then you’d have to explain why Jesus would be going to Jerusalem for Hanukkah. It’s not a pilgrimage festival.

Um. I thought Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover? :ehh:

 

[bksumm]

I think it’s interesting that the Jews of the 1st Century didn’t agree on what was inspired scripture. I believe the Sadducees only accepted the Torah, while the Pharisees accepted a larger canon that is essentially the modern Protestant OT. The Samaritans accepted an even larger canon. The Essenes, had books from the DC in the caves of Qumran. To say that the Jews had a settled list/canon during the apostolic era probably not accurate.

I have a question. I am aware of the Jerome controversy, Athanasius Festal letter, and the councils. But do we have an example of a Christian Bible prior to the Reformation that mirrors the Protestant canon?

 

[frnate]

How is it that they were authoritative at one point and ceased to be so later? On whose authority were they omitted?

The authority of the successors of “Their All Holinesses: Luther, Calvin and Zwingli”

 

[yanghongyu]

Your essay makes a lot of sense, can give everyone very different things
Shiancoe, Visanthe jerseys

 

[SonCatcher]

That’s fine but then you’d have to explain why Jesus would be going to Jerusalem for Hanukkah. It’s not a pilgrimage festival.

I don’t have to explain at all. Jesus was a wandering teacher. He was not necessarily there “for” Hanukkah either but may have just happened to be there at the same time. However, I do not think the occurrence to be random.

John’s gospel is full of symbol. It is probable that John included the reference to the feast because he saw some deeper meaning of it in the discussion that followed (or - less likely - the discussion that preceded it). It may have been just an explanation of why Jesus was teaching in Solomon’s Portico, however.

If it pleases you, I have often considered Peter’s request at the Transfiguration to be a reference to Sukkot.

 

[SonCatcher]

Um. I thought Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover? :ehh:

Most of John’s gospel happens in Jerusalem so he places Jesus there much more frequently.