Formation of the canon?

[BrianH]

The formal split was not in 451, we didn’t split until 1054 at the earliest. At least in terms of a more or less objectivly unreconcilable split. There were attempts, but they lasted a short time and ultimitly failed. The Orthodox would ultimatly accept many concils and synods after 451.

As far as the Orientals and eastern Christians, they accept the basic findings of the councils, but see no reason to declare them doctrainal. They view the canon as tradition.

The Oriental Orthodox only accept three. I hate to be this blunt but you do know the difference between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox??

 

[JRKH]

S0 how can it be said that the councils estabslished them or that we submit to the authority of these earlier councils if we have not established whether they “established” it for the church or “confirmed” what organically developed?

If you take both of my posts together it makes more sense.
The councils likely DID have a large number of the books already organically accepted. However there were others that were either greatly or minorly contested. These the councils made determination on. So the councils did BOTH. They started fromwhat was organically developed and then “established” a position on those books that were not universally accepted.

In any event - The 73 book canon was the canon that was established by the Church (undivided) and survived intact in both the Eastern and Western Church dispite the East West Split in 1054. It survived intact until the western “reformers” changed it.

At least that is my take on it.

Peace
James

 

[BrianH]

If you take both of my posts together it makes more sense.
The councils likely DID have a large number of the books already organically accepted. However there were others that were either greatly or minorly contested. These the councils made determination on. So the councils did BOTH. They started fromwhat was organically developed and then “established” a position on those books that were not universally accepted.

Peace
James

I will say that without more information, I do not think it can be historically verified that the council spent more time talking about what may or may not be perceived as contested circa 400 AD. Of course, there were portions of the church that continued to reject Revelation for example and its use is limited
sor.cua.edu/Bible/Translations.html
As far as a 73 book canon, something that you must be interested in discussing I am just now figuring out, some parts of Christianity have a larger canon which once again makes me wonder about the scope and influence of the regional synods.

 

[JRKH]

I will say that without more information, I do not think it can be historically verified that the council spent more time talking about what may or may not be perceived as contested circa 400 AD. Of course, there were portions of the church that continued to reject Revelation for example and its use is limited
sor.cua.edu/Bible/Translations.html
As far as a 73 book canon, something that you must be interested in discussing I am just now figuring out, some parts of Christianity have a larger canon which once again makes me wonder about the scope and influence of the regional synods.

This is true though I am not well aquainted with these matters.
Normally I am discussing things with western Christians whose roots go back to the “reformation” and use the 66 book canon that was derived from the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
I really haven’t had the time to get into the other rites and the canons used by them.

I have may hands full now.

Hope you get some better answers than I could provide.

Peace
James