Deuterocanonical Books and the CC. What do we protestants lack?

[Dave_Noonan]

And I guess their descendants still have, which would be the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

May I ask which canons they used? The whole Septuagint? Or also other books outside the Septuagint?
I guess you are also referring to apocryphal NT scriptures, right?

Esdra

As far as I know, this chart is fairly accurate:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

(scroll down).

 

[Esdra]

As far as I know, this chart is fairly accurate:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

(scroll down).

Wow thanks! This table is pretty intersting and useful for comparing religions/denominations!



Esdra

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Wow thanks! This table is pretty intersting and useful for comparing religions/denominations!



Esdra

You’re welcome.

 

[JRKH]

OK. The rulings of councils are often referred to as “canons” so I’m not sure sure what’s being discussed above exactly.

Also, I guess we weren’t connecting on the phrase “Churches of the East.” You were speaking of the Byzantine church and I was speaking of churches such as the Nestorian and Jacobite churches (or, basically churches outside the Roman Empire, which are often collectively referred to as the “Church of the East” or “Churches of the East.”) By the time of Nicaea II, there were probably more Christians living outside of the realms of Rome and Constantinople than there were inside, and as far as I know, these churches didn’t participate in the so-called “ecumenical” councils after Ephesus. Their role is relevant here because these churches historically had biblical canons that differed from those in the Byzantine and Roman churches.

…Churches like the Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopic, Coptic and various Syriac churches not aligned with Rome.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the documents are not the clearest, but since they confirm the authority of the previous councils the canon would be a part of this.
As to the “churches not aligned with Rome”, obviously I cannot speak to them. I’m not up on their particular histories, whether they were ever in full communion with Rome etc.

Of course the point of my earlier post which prompted you question about the Council of Nicea is that The Church never put the same sort of emphasis on a particular canon that the SS folks do. Scripture, as an essential part of the Tradition of the Church has always taken equal status with Oral Tradion and the Teaching Authority of The Church.
Thus it is that even those books not incuded in the Catholic Canon are seen as a “scriptural”, part of the Tradition of the Church and used for the scholarly study, research and understanding of the revelation of God to His people.

I could even go a step further and say that there have been many writings since the close of the apostolic age, not included in the Holy bible, and yet are “God breathed”, that is, ispired of God and for God and the edification of His people.

It is only when the Bible is ripped from the tradition of The Church, and made to stand on it’s own, without the support of Tradition and ekklesial (Church) authority that the problems come in. Doctrinal problems that started out badly and have gotten worse since then.

Peace
James

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the documents are not the clearest, but since they confirm the authority of the previous councils the canon would be a part of this.
As to the “churches not aligned with Rome”, obviously I cannot speak to them. I’m not up on their particular histories, whether they were ever in full communion with Rome etc.

Of course the point of my earlier post which prompted you question about the Council of Nicea is that The Church never put the same sort of emphasis on a particular canon that the SS folks do. Scripture, as an essential part of the Tradition of the Church has always taken equal status with Oral Tradion and the Teaching Authority of The Church.
Thus it is that even those books not incuded in the Catholic Canon are seen as a “scriptural”, part of the Tradition of the Church and used for the scholarly study, research and understanding of the revelation of God to His people.

I could even go a step further and say that there have been many writings since the close of the apostolic age, not included in the Holy bible, and yet are “God breathed”, that is, ispired of God and for God and the edification of His people.

It is only when the Bible is ripped from the tradition of The Church, and made to stand on it’s own, without the support of Tradition and ekklesial (Church) authority that the problems come in. Doctrinal problems that started out badly and have gotten worse since then.

Peace
James

I think one good place to begin learning about the Churches of the East is Jenkins’ The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia…. For me, learning about these churches, their language, their theologians, and their liturgies has helped me eventually realize the pretty gross distortion present in typical Western presentations of Christian history and practice.

I’m assuming by “SS” you mean sola scriptura–and I think you’re probably referring to “Bible alone” Christians (?) the difference between the two having been the subject of many recent threads here at CAF. I know what (I think) you mean by the understanding scripture in light of sacred tradition and we would agree on that, though we would probably disagree on “equal status.” If you read the church fathers, appeals to scripture generally seem to trump appeals to other authorities. But it’s all important–agreed.

Actually I think the whole “God breathed” business is not very useful. It’s one verse in the Bible and maybe a good general theological concept, but when you start applying it to different works, it doesn’t inform any objective criteria for canonical selection. But I do think the point is that after the invention of the codex in the fourth century and onward, various different Christian groups have always had somewhat varying collections of material in their book that they referred to as “The Bible.” The Catholic canon differs from the Protestant canon differs from the Ethiopic canon differs from the Armenian etc. etc. Each group must ultimately decide what’s sacred to them and I’m totally fine with that. But I don’t think either a “Bible alone” Christian or a Roman Catholic has enough historical standing to say that their own particular list of what should be in the Bible is objectively correct and that all the rest are wrong. I don’t think the Bible ever stands on its own, as much as such groups want to claim that it does. The Bible is always only a piece of a much larger interpretive and theological tradition.

 

[mortonsam]

I’m sorry but I cannot accept this. Mortonsam states that the deutero’s, “are not Inspired word of God.” But on what does he base this? It can’t be becuae the early church rejects them, for St Paul had no problem with them. He spent much time in the Greek community and wrote his famous letter to the bishop of a Greek community, who would be using the LXX, and did not qualify his statement that ALL Scripture is God breathed… In fact, in none of Pauls letters, most to “Greek” communites, do we see any qualification that Scripture is restricted to the “Hebrew books”.
It can’t be that the canonical councils of the Church rejected them for they were included in every “offical”, council approved, canon between 382 and 1440 and on up to and through the Protestant Schism (reformation).
So The Church in NT times and in council - in multilple councils - have accepted the deutero’s as “God Breathed” from the earliest days.

And as for there being little of “theological value” in them, who is to say? Jesus himself did not quote or reference every book in the OT canon. How much “theological value” is contained in the many “historical books” still included in the 39 book OT canon? They offer historical reference and some help in understanding doctrinal development perhaps, but in this sense so would the deutero’s.

Mortonsam declares that he/they “lack nothing” and yet, while I cannot be sure about mortonsam, Most protestants reject prayer for the dead/purgatory as “unbiblical” when it is, in fact, quite biblical as shown in Maccabees.

Esdra, you have shown great wisdom in asking the question about the deutero’s rather than just “dismissing them” out of hand. For our part, we have demonstrated that Christ, Paul and the early Church in general knew of and accepted the Deutero’s as Scripture.

Mortonsam simply dismisses them with little historical or theological justification.

Peace
James

I dismiss them on the basis that there are several errors to be found in them and furthermore, they were never eluded to by Christ when he spoke in the Gospels. Again, historical yes, but Scripture no. Even when St. Jerome was compiling the Latin Vulgate, he did not put them in the order that they now appear in a Catholic bible. His recommendation was declined by Rome. There are lots of reasons to dismiss the apocrypha.

 

[Big_Dummy]

From reading this thread I don’t see that protestants lacks anything because they don’t have those books.

 

[agent_grey]

a lot of protestants have substituted a book for the word of God.

If you believe the scriptures are the innerant word of God and you believe that scripture and scripture alone is how one comes to truth than you fall into this catagory.

 

[JRKH]

I think one good place to begin learning about the Churches of the East is Jenkins’ The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia…. For me, learning about these churches, their language, their theologians, and their liturgies has helped me eventually realize the pretty gross distortion present in typical Western presentations of Christian history and practice.

thanks for the recommendation

I’m assuming by “SS” you mean sola scriptura–and I think you’re probably referring to “Bible alone” Christians (?) the difference between the two having been the subject of many recent threads here at CAF.

Yes - SS = Sola Scriptura. In this I am refering mainly to that group of individuals/communities who deny the “authoritative” church" and substitute “individual interpretation” of the Bible. It is these who hold up the (66 book) bible and declare it the be all and end all of “God’s Word”, either ignoring or ignorant of the history of the Bible canon.

I know what (I think) you mean by the understanding scripture in light of sacred tradition and we would agree on that, though we would probably disagree on “equal status.” If you read the church fathers, appeals to scripture generally seem to trump appeals to other authorities. But it’s all important–agreed.

When I say “equal” I mean that Scripture and Sacred Tradtion are both equally important.
If we say that Scripture contains Truth and that, as St Paul says, The Church is the pillar and bulwark (support and defence) of Truth then what good is one without the other…
As to what trumps what, I can only say that, as time marched on, appeal to Scripture is paramount but also that appeals to the early understanding of Scripture (what the ECF’s say) would trump later, more invative, interpretations. - So it is a chain that links us today to the Apostolic times.

Actually I think the whole “God breathed” business is not very useful. It’s one verse in the Bible and maybe a good general theological concept, but when you start applying it to different works, it doesn’t inform any objective criteria for canonical selection.

Agreed and I frankly have no problem with the verse at all. The problem I have is with those “hard line biblisists” who hold this up as something that supposedly proves that the bible trumps the church, which it clearly does not. As you say it is but a single verse and is, actually just one part of a verse.

But I do think the point is that after the invention of the codex in the fourth century and onward, various different Christian groups have always had somewhat varying collections of material in their book that they referred to as “The Bible.” The Catholic canon differs from the Protestant canon differs from the Ethiopic canon differs from the Armenian etc. etc. Each group must ultimately decide what’s sacred to them and I’m totally fine with that. But I don’t think either a “Bible alone” Christian or a Roman Catholic has enough historical standing to say that their own particular list of what should be in the Bible is objectively correct and that all the rest are wrong. I don’t think the Bible ever stands on its own, as much as such groups want to claim that it does. The Bible is always only a piece of a much larger interpretive and theological tradition.

You and I are quite in agreement here. The deep historical view of the bible canon leaves it somewhat open. Even ignoring the “oriental churches” and looking just at the RC/EO, the bible canon was never entirely settled with the East using a larger canon than the west. Yet neither east or west thought this was a issue worthy of schism. I believe this is because these texts whether taken as “Biblical” or not, were seen and used within the context of the authoritative Church and not seperate from it.

My main purpose in arguing the canon of Scripture is to get some other folks to think and maybe investigate the history of the canon. If tehy do so they will learn, as we have, that it is not so linear and precise as their faith tradition would like to make it out to be.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I dismiss them on the basis that there are several errors to be found in them and furthermore, they were never eluded to by Christ when he spoke in the Gospels. Again, historical yes, but Scripture no.

I cannot speak to “historical errors” but as to Christ’s alluding to them, THIS seems to suggest otherwise. Furthermore id Christ’s not alluding to an OT book is reson to reject it, then you will need to reject some 14 more that are included in the Protestant canon.

Even when St. Jerome was compiling the Latin Vulgate, he did not put them in the order that they now appear in a Catholic bible. His recommendation was declined by Rome.

I do not deny that individuals had concerns about the deuteros, but whatever their individual opinions, “The Church”, in multiple, Spirit Guided councils, included them.

There are lots of reasons to dismiss the apocrypha.

And even better reasons to include them. It has already been demonstrated that Protestants are missing the concept of praying for the dead and purgatory in no small part because they dismiss the DC books. That which the protestant claims to be “unbiblical” is only so based on a young canon of dubious pedigree. Yet it is quite biblical based on the far more ancient 73 book canon of far more firm pedigree.

Peace
James