Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[Stephen168]

I understand history can be complicated, but how would you order the following statements for how true they are?

A. The Catholic Church adapted the canon of the Septuagint (circa 2000BC) as their canon of the Old Testament.
B. The Catholic Church adapted their canon of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
C. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon (circa 90AD) in the 4th century.
D. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon at the Council of Trent(16th century).

My answer would be B, A, C, D.

I guess I would say that “C” would be the better of the choices since the earlier councils did list the dc’s as part of the canon.

You do realize that none of the LXX manuscripts you mention match the Catholic OT canon don’t you?

Which is why I believe B is more true than A. But you think C is more true than B; explain yourself

 

[Stephen168]

I understand history can be complicated, but how would you order the following statements for how true they are?

A. The Catholic Church adapted the canon of the Septuagint (circa 2000BC) as their canon of the Old Testament.
B. The Catholic Church adapted their canon of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
C. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon (circa 90AD) in the 4th century.
D. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon at the Council of Trent(16th century).

My answer would be B, A, C, D.

I guess I would say that “C” would be the better of the choices since the earlier councils did list the dc’s as part of the canon.

No, I don’t mean word for word. I mean we don’t have in our possesion one single manuscript of the LXX which matches book for book the canon of the RCC (OT of course).

The fact is, we can’t go back and prove what books were contained in the LXX of Jesus’ time or if there was one single edition or many various editions,each containing a different collection of books.

Which is why I believe B is more true than A. But you think C is more true than B; explain yourself

 

[Stephen168]

I understand history can be complicated, but how would you order the following statements for how true they are?

A. The Catholic Church adapted the canon of the Septuagint (circa 2000BC) as their canon of the Old Testament.
B. The Catholic Church adapted their canon of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
C. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon (circa 90AD) in the 4th century.
D. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon at the Council of Trent(16th century).

My answer would be B, A, C, D.

Statement B ignores the dispute between the Palestinian and Hellenized Jews.

Which one do you think is more true?

Is Protestantism based on being contrary to Catholicism or do you have a position to stand by?
The OP seems to want to know if it wasn’t the Catholic (as used by Ignatius of Antioch) Church that made the canon of the Bible (New and Old Testament) who was it?

 

[SemperReformada]

I understand history can be complicated, but how would you order the following statements for how true they are?

A. The Catholic Church adapted the canon of the Septuagint (circa 2000BC) as their canon of the Old Testament.
B. The Catholic Church adapted their canon of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
C. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon (circa 90AD) in the 4th century.
D. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon at the Council of Trent(16th century).

My answer would be B, A, C, D.

Which is why I believe B is more true than A. But you think C is more true than B; explain yourself

.
I’m not sure if I see a difference between A and B. I guess in choice A you are saying the Catholic church adopted the exact canon found in the LXX. Is that right? You seem to acknowledge that there is no way to prove what books were contained in the LXX of Jesus’ time.

 

[YADA]

JUST A QUICK [AND SIMPLIFIED INCOMPLETE] ANALYSIS SHOWS:

The Codex Sinaiticus, has suffered degradation and decay but is considered to have contained the entire Hebrew writings contained in the Old Testament:

Of the Old Testament: Basically the first sections from Genesis to Ezra is the most severely damaged . The remaining fragments and books that are left include some verses from Genesis and from Numbers, a few from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Joel, Obidiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Wisdom, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, **I Maccabees, II Maccabees [Dueteros], III Maccabees and IV Maccabees **[considered apocryphal] and the order of these four are rearranged - but I listed them in numerical order here …

The New Testament is complete but also includes the Epistle of Barnabas; and parts of the **Shepherd of Hermas **[not found in the NT]. The order of the New Testament is different then normal with the letters of St. Paul’ coming before Acts and with the Letter to the Hebrews following the Second Letter to the Thessalonians.

NOW YOU WILL SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT MATCH THE CATHOLIC CANNON … BUT WHOSE CANNON DOES IT MATCH WITH BETTER YOURS OR THE CHURCH’S … IMHO IT IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THEN THE PROTESTANT BOOK … THIS EARLY WITNESS ALONG WITH THE LISTS OF BOOKS GIVEN BY THE OTHER POSTERS SHOWS THAT THE CATHOLICS DID NOT ADD BOOKS AT TRENT … BUT THAT PROTESTANTS REMOVED THEM FROM THE CANON …

 

[SemperReformada]

JUST A QUICK [AND SIMPLIFIED INCOMPLETE] ANALYSIS SHOWS:

The Codex Sinaiticus, has suffered degradation and decay but is considered to have contained the entire Hebrew writings contained in the Old Testament:

Of the Old Testament: Basically the first sections from Genesis to Ezra is the most severely damaged . The remaining fragments and books that are left include some verses from Genesis and from Numbers, a few from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Joel, Obidiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Wisdom, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, **I Maccabees, II Maccabees [Dueteros], III Maccabees and IV Maccabees **[considered apocryphal] and the order of these four are rearranged - but I listed them in numerical order here …

The New Testament is complete but also includes the Epistle of Barnabas; and parts of the **Shepherd of Hermas **[not found in the NT]. The order of the New Testament is different then normal with the letters of St. Paul’ coming before Acts and with the Letter to the Hebrews following the Second Letter to the Thessalonians.

NOW YOU WILL SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT MATCH THE CATHOLIC CANNON … BUT WHOSE CANNON DOES IT MATCH WITH BETTER YOURS OR THE CHURCH’S … IMHO IT IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THEN THE PROTESTANT BOOK … THIS EARLY WITNESS ALONG WITH THE LISTS OF BOOKS GIVEN BY THE OTHER POSTERS SHOWS THAT THE CATHOLICS DID NOT ADD BOOKS AT TRENT … BUT THAT PROTESTANTS REMOVED THEM FROM THE CANON …

I don’t think anyone is disputing that the dc’s were used by the early church, I know I haven’t made that claim. My gripe would be with those who claim that no one rejected the dc’s until the reformation which clearly and demonstrably isn’t true.

It is also true that Trent issued the first dogmatic decree of the OT canon. I’m not sure why that rankles some Catholics but it sure seems to.

Is it fair to say the RCC “added” the dc’s at Trent? I guess it would depend on what one means by added but I would probably not choose to make that statement.

As for the LXX…I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Some early Christians accepted the dc’s some didn’t…kind of like now. Anyway, it’s a distinctly Catholic claim that their OT matches the LXX which as you seem to recognize isn’t the case at all.

 

[Christian_Sr]

In a New testament Survey class in I took in college the same question was asked, “where did the Bible come from?” The response actually made me fall out of my chair. The instructor, a man who claims to hold three Masters degrees in various form s of theology stated with absolute authority, and I quote, “they (scripture) fell out of the sky” (like the build up? I was going for dramatic effect)

Just thought I’d add a little humor (even-though it isn’t funny)

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t think anyone is disputing that the dc’s were used by the early church, I know I haven’t made that claim. My gripe would be with those who claim that no one rejected the dc’s until the reformation which clearly and demonstrably isn’t true.

It is also true that Trent issued the first dogmatic decree of the OT canon. I’m not sure why that rankles some Catholics but it sure seems to.

Is it fair to say the RCC “added” the dc’s at Trent? I guess it would depend on what one means by added but I would probably not choose to make that statement.

As for the LXX…I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Some early Christians accepted the dc’s some didn’t…kind of like now. Anyway, it’s a distinctly Catholic claim that their OT matches the LXX which as you seem to recognize isn’t the case at all.

We are not claiming that NO ONE disputed the Canon. We are saying that there was a general consensus on the Canon (including St. Jerome!) and that of the early Bishops and FAthers there was no dispute.

 

[YADA]

I don’t think anyone is disputing that the dc’s were used by the early church, I know I haven’t made that claim. My gripe would be with those who claim that no one rejected the dc’s until the reformation which clearly and demonstrably isn’t true.

It is also true that Trent issued the first dogmatic decree of the OT canon. I’m not sure why that rankles some Catholics but it sure seems to.

Is it fair to say the RCC “added” the dc’s at Trent? I guess it would depend on what one means by added but I would probably not choose to make that statement.

As for the LXX…I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Some early Christians accepted the dc’s some didn’t…kind of like now. Anyway, it’s a distinctly Catholic claim that their OT matches the LXX which as you seem to recognize isn’t the case at all.

Yes - there was debate … also debated was the Trinity, and the very Nature of Christ - Human [Man], Divine [God] or Both [Human and Divine] … debate IMHO and historically does not negate the position or authoritative voice of the Church … but in time the Church has entered into the debate and did so decisively … they did that with the Tinity the Nature of Christ and the Canon of Scripture … there was no need before Trent to “definitively establish the canonical Books of Scripture [Bible]” until Luther and the other reformers started playing fast ans loose … I think the reasons Catholic take this so much to heart is because the conversation around the Reformation and Trent always seems to rest solely on the Deuteros … however … Luther had very different takes on the New Testamemnt as well … the other reformers [and perhaps some dedication to his cause and the support he hoped to garner] convinced him to tailor his reforms of the scriptures … Luther did not consider Revelation or 1 Timothy worthy of inclusion … even if they ultimately remained … The Church was responding to all of these attacks upon the 1500 years of Christian practice … even if there had been debate … Thus it is disengenous to say Catholics put them in … when 'In" they had been for centuries … extant in the bibles that existed before Luther’s … at his time, and in the centuries back …

So - clearly - even though no perfectly preserved manuscript or set of scrolls exists the earliest ones we have that would be completely preserved do … and those truly ancient texts [and ECF lists as a witness] include them in whole or part … and give witness to being closer to the Catholic position then the Protestant one …

That is the historical and archeological/literary record … you can’t prove anything other then there was dissent … Well there are people today who argue for the Gospels of Thomas [Gnostic Texts] and how the ‘evil’ church repressed them … by your standard their view is equally valid … because these texts were disputed … and perhaps it is valid to remove Revelation … if Luther was correct about the Dueteros … then Rvelation can go to … and you know what … Dan Brown has quite a following … his own Church … they have there own “Bible” …

For the Christian community - the Church [historical church] authoritatively listed the books through the ages and the historical lists, the actual volumes, the witness of the dissenters … [how can you dissent from their inclusion if they are not included? ] witness that fact … The Church did not add the books - others removed them - Pax

 

[SemperReformada]

We are not claiming that NO ONE disputed the Canon. We are saying that there was a general consensus on the Canon (including St. Jerome!) and that of the early Bishops and FAthers there was no dispute.

Jerome rejected the dc’s.

As to the fathers, they were a mixed bag as to whether they accepted or rejected the dc’s.

While you may not claim that NO ONE rejected the dc’s as canonical that claim was made by another Catholic earlier in this thread.

 

[greggy53]

Your post does not address any of the points made.
Was the Council of Rome a universal or provisional council?

Did you address that?
NO

Did the Council of Rome close or finalize the cannon so that the issue was settled within Catholicism?

Did you address that?
NO

The council of Rome was presided over by the Pope in 382 AD. The cannon has remained unchanged since then. You are making an argument that doesn’t exist. You are as they say building a straw man.

 

[CWBetts]

Jerome rejected the dc’s.

As to the fathers, they were a mixed bag as to whether they accepted or rejected the dc’s.

While you may not claim that NO ONE rejected the dc’s as canonical that claim was made by another Catholic earlier in this thread.

Where is your documentary evidence from AFTER the 4th Century councils that there was division over the Canon among the Church Fathers?

 

[greggy53]

Jerome rejected the dc’s.

As to the fathers, they were a mixed bag as to whether they accepted or rejected the dc’s.

While you may not claim that NO ONE rejected the dc’s as canonical that claim was made by another Catholic earlier in this thread.

Big problem here with that. If St Jerome rejected the dc’s why did he include them in his vulgate translation?

 

[SemperReformada]

Big problem here with that. If St Jerome rejected the dc’s why did he include them in his vulgate translation?

The dc’s were included within the pages of the vulgate but as I have mentioned several times the dc’s also included Jerome’s prologue to each dc which was clearly negative as to their (the dc’s) being on par with canonical scripture. So you do find the dc’s bound in the same book with the other canonical scriptures but you also find text clearly stating that they are not to be taken as canonical.

Luther rejected the dc’s as canonical but nevertheless included them in his edition of the bible.

For a good read on this go to www.newadvent.org and search for OT canon and read their article.

 

[SemperReformada]

Where is your documentary evidence from AFTER the 4th Century councils that there was division over the Canon among the Church Fathers?

Probably the best answer to your question can be found at www.newadvent.org under the section on the OT canon. You will learn from the article the following:

• Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the OT canon (not that there weren’t earlier statements)
• Jerome included the dc’s in the Vulgate but he also included his opinion to the negative as to their canonocity
• The prologues to the dc’s contained in the Vulgate ended up contributing to some doubting their canonocity

Additionaly, if you search my previous posts you will find that Augustine who accepted the dc’s as canonical and presided over the North African councils did not see the early councils as being dogmatic. In fact, one of my first points contained some information on how even the council fathers at Trent were not of a unanimous mind when it came to the including the dc’s as part of the OT canon.

The main scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, included the dc’s but rejected their canonocity.

Another good source for more information on this issue is to purchase a tape/cd/mp3 of the debate between James White and Gary Michuta. Good stuff presented by both sides.

Since www.newadvent.org is a Catholic site and holds at least some level of authority or reliability for Catholics I recommend you start there.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure if I see a difference between A and B. I guess in choice A you are saying the Catholic church adopted the exact canon found in the LXX. Is that right?

Yes

You seem to acknowledge that there is no way to prove what books were contained in the LXX of Jesus’ time.

No more than there was a Hebrew canon in Jesus’ time.

Explain the difference between B and C

 

[CWBetts]

Probably the best answer to your question can be found at www.newadvent.org under the section on the OT canon. You will learn from the article the following:

• Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the OT canon (not that there weren’t earlier statements)
• Jerome included the dc’s in the Vulgate but he also included his opinion to the negative as to their canonocity
• The prologues to the dc’s contained in the Vulgate ended up contributing to some doubting their canonocity

Additionaly, if you search my previous posts you will find that Augustine who accepted the dc’s as canonical and presided over the North African councils did not see the early councils as being dogmatic. In fact, one of my first points contained some information on how even the council fathers at Trent were not of a unanimous mind when it came to the including the dc’s as part of the OT canon.

The main scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, included the dc’s but rejected their canonocity.

Another good source for more information on this issue is to purchase a tape/cd/mp3 of the debate between James White and Gary Michuta. Good stuff presented by both sides.

Since www.newadvent.org is a Catholic site and holds at least some level of authority or reliability for Catholics I recommend you start there.

Nothing of what you gave me is post-consular, and thereby avoiding the question

 

[greggy53]

The dc’s were included within the pages of the vulgate but as I have mentioned several times the dc’s also included Jerome’s prologue to each dc which was clearly negative as to their (the dc’s) being on par with canonical scripture. So you do find the dc’s bound in the same book with the other canonical scriptures but you also find text clearly stating that they are not to be taken as canonical.

Luther rejected the dc’s as canonical but nevertheless included them in his edition of the bible.

For a good read on this go to www.newadvent.org and search for OT canon and read their article.

So, are you telling me the Dc’s are not scripture because St Jerome among others including yourself do not think they are scripture? … The Holy Catholic Church declared them to be scripture, and everyone who accepts the authority of God’s church accepts the DC’s as scripture. St Jerome included. The fact that the prologue to the Vulgate that St Jerome wrote was allowed to be included speaks volumes for the tolerance of the Church. They could have easily declared it heretical removed it.
Luther removed the DC’s from the old testament cannon and set them off with other books and called them Apocrypha. St Jerome kept the Dc’s in with the Old testament. Again, the Church has included the Dc’s since 382 AD. The Church has never removed them.

 

[SemperReformada]

So, are you telling me the Dc’s are not scripture because St Jerome among others including yourself do not think they are scripture? …

Nope, never said or insinuated any such thing.

The Holy Catholic Church declared them to be scripture, and everyone who accepts the authority of God’s church accepts the DC’s as scripture.

Yup.

St Jerome included.

Nope. No evidence that he ever recanted his position and why should he? Apparently the earlier councils were not binding nor were they understood as binding with regards to the OT canon. Why would there have been debate and even a vote at Trent if the issue had truely been settled back in the 4th or 5th century?

The fact that the prologue to the Vulgate that St Jerome wrote was allowed to be included speaks volumes for the tolerance of the Church. They could have easily declared it heretical removed it.

It could also be that the councils OT canon wasn’t considered as being dogmatic and therefore Jerome’s opinion would not have been heretical.

Luther removed the DC’s from the old testament cannon and set them off with other books and called them Apocrypha. St Jerome kept the Dc’s in with the Old testament.

There is very little difference between Luther and Jerome with regards to how the handled the dc’s.

Again, the Church has included the Dc’s since 382 AD. The Church has never removed them.

Yup…but the first dogmatic declaration of the OT canon came at Trent.

 

[greggy53]

Nope, never said or insinuated any such thing…

So you accept the Cannon that the Catholic Church established over 1600 years ago?
If so, then what are you trying to tell us?

Nope. No evidence that he ever recanted his position and why should he? Apparently the earlier councils were not binding nor were they understood as binding with regards to the OT canon. Why would there have been debate and even a vote at Trent if the issue had truely been settled back in the 4th or 5th century?..

Except the evidence that he included the Dc’s in the OT cannon and remained faithful to the Church. The Church has debated thousands of issues over it’s history. You are trying to create a tempest in a tea cup.

It could also be that the councils OT canon wasn’t considered as being dogmatic and therefore Jerome’s opinion would not have been heretical…

It “could also be”, or maybe…you are engaging in conjecture.

There is very little difference between Luther and Jerome with regards to how the handled the dc’s…

I disagree. Luther removed them from the OT cannon and placed them in with other books in their own place in the Bible…By the way do any of you Protestants know when or why the Apocrypha was removed from your Bibles? Who gets to decide what books belong in the Bible and what doesn’t?

Yup…but the first dogmatic declaration of the OT canon came at Trent.

Nonsense, In 382 AD the Pope declared those books belonged in the OT cannon. Trent just re-affirmed the Catholic position, and the heresy of the so-called reformers.