How come the Orthodox get to have more books in their Bibles?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

I’m not sure what you mean by the “official” canon. Most are working with the Protestant one (an unfortunate result of the loss of Coptic and the reliance on Van ****'s Arabic translation). The Deuterocanonicals are found in liturgics, though.

I refer to the canon of the Coptic Church before the influence of Protestantism, which was and is identical to the Catholic Canon.

Nor to the Latin official canon, as Jerome rejected the Septuagint which St. Athanasius (and all the Fathers, including the Latin ones) used.

Not sure what you mean by “nor to the Latin official canon.” Do you mean it is not similar or identical to the Latin Canon? In any case, there are a few things wrong with your statement here:
First, if your point is that the Latin and Coptic Orthodox canons are not similar or identical, then I would ask you to do more research, because the canon of the North African area was in general one and the same as the canon of the Latin Church from the beginning. Before the Chalcedonian schism ,the Churches of Rome and Alexandria had an extremely close relationship, each one borrowing from the other in several areas. Through the Church in Carthage the Alexandrian Church came to adopt the Latin canon very early on.
Second, that Jerome rejected the Septuagint is a senseless anti-Latin canard. St. Jerome specifically praised the Septuagint and in a couple of places in his writings testifies that the Septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Third, you presume that just because the Fathers (East and West) used the Septuagint, that is tantamount to them accepting ALL the books of the Septuagint. That is simply not true (as evinced by St. Athanasius, just as one immediate example).

As for the alignment:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

Your citation proves my point exactly, because St. Athanasius’ list contains one or two less books than both the Latin and Greek canons. But since the Latin Canon also contains less books than the Greek Canon, that makes St. Athanasius’ canon more similar to the Latin’s.

Such as Maccabbees, which Latins and Orthodox accept, but Athanasius does not mention in his Letter? Macc

Yes, which really is not relevant as far as my statement that St. Athanasius’ canon is more similar to the Latin and Coptic Orthodox Canon than the Eastern Orthodox canon.

The Pope so considers me, as I have communed at DL where he celebrated

Never doubted it as both of you are in the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Such as? I doubt any Orthodox, Greek, Arab or Copt would dispute this point on St. Athanasius.

You stated Pope St. Athanasius canonized the Septuagint, which he did not (acceptance of the Septuagint came WAAAAY before St. Athanasius). In the context of THIS THREAD, your claim implies that St. Athanasius canonized ALL the books of the Septuagint, which he did not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

My intention was to point out that the book of Revelation was written in captivity, so he (John) was unaware of most of Paul’s writings and possible others. There are pretty much two proposed dates for when Revelation was written. The first is somewhere between 65-68 AD. The second is around 95-96 AD. I believe the latter date to be more accurate and the date accepted by the Catholic Church. I believe tradition idenitifies the Apostle John as its author, though some hold that it was written by an individual named John the Elder–modern biblical criticism has its hand in this . I believe the tradition to be accurate and I think that eventually John was released and returned to Antioch where he died in 98 AD. Please correct me if I’m wrong in any of these statements…

I find nothing wrong with any of your statements. I agree the correct time for the production of Revelation is in the latter first century. Since Paul was martyred before 80 A.D., I think it is safe to say John was aware of Paul’s letters, and perhaps some of the general epistles of the other apostles. What do you think?

Anyway, I don’t doubt that the warning at the end of Revelation extends only to the self-same book.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

I find nothing wrong with any of your statements. I agree the correct time for the production of Revelation is in the latter first century. Since Paul was martyred before 80 A.D., I think it is safe to say John was aware of Paul’s letters, and perhaps some of the general epistles of the other apostles. What do you think?

Anyway, I don’t doubt that the warning at the end of Revelation extends only to the self-same book.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not sure when John was exiled, so I assume that is an important starting point. I would think that once he was exiled, he wouldn’t have contact with others? Or would he? At the minimum, the New Testament canon was not established, so he wouldn’t be aware of what books would be included (most likely). Besides, Paul’s letters were just that–letters to specific churches…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I find nothing wrong with any of your statements. I agree the correct time for the production of Revelation is in the latter first century. Since Paul was martyred before 80 A.D., I think it is safe to say John was aware of Paul’s letters, and perhaps some of the general epistles of the other apostles. What do you think?

Anyway, I don’t doubt that the warning at the end of Revelation extends only to the self-same book.

Blessings,
Marduk

St. John returned to Ephesus, not Antioch, where his tomb is to this day (the Latin church is restoring it in marble, but, at least when I was there ('92?), it had no roof).

That the author extended it to the self same book, is not the determining factor: the Church placed it in the canon, and as such, it forms part of the whole corpus, Otherwise, we have to go along with Harvey (“The Historian and the Beliver”), that the Pauline corpus cannot be used to interpret the Gospels, which is to say we have to toss all Christian exegesis.

As all indications are that the epistles circulated (see St. Peter on St. Paul) and read in the Churches, that the Church had already composed and published its story (see the introduction of St. Luke), and there was a high degree of contact, etc. St. John would have a good knowlege of most of what the NT canon includes

 

[Alexius]

St. John returned to Ephesus, not Antioch, where his tomb is to this day (the Latin church is restoring it in marble, but, at least when I was there ('92?), it had no roof).

That the author extended it to the self same book, is not the determining factor: the Church placed it in the canon, and as such, it forms part of the whole corpus, Otherwise, we have to go along with Harvey (“The Historian and the Beliver”), that the Pauline corpus cannot be used to interpret the Gospels, which is to say we have to toss all Christian exegesis.

As all indications are that the epistles circulated (see St. Peter on St. Paul) and read in the Churches, that the Church had already composed and published its story (see the introduction of St. Luke), and there was a high degree of contact, etc. St. John would have a good knowlege of most of what the NT canon includes

I don’t know why I said Antioch :doh2: Probably because I’ve been writing alot about St. Ignatius of Antioch lately…I was in Ephesus and I think that is where St. John’s Church is?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

St. John returned to Ephesus, not Antioch, where his tomb is to this day (the Latin church is restoring it in marble, but, at least when I was there ('92?), it had no roof).

That the author extended it to the self same book, is not the determining factor: the Church placed it in the canon, and as such, it forms part of the whole corpus, Otherwise, we have to go along with Harvey (“The Historian and the Beliver”), that the Pauline corpus cannot be used to interpret the Gospels, which is to say we have to toss all Christian exegesis.

As all indications are that the epistles circulated (see St. Peter on St. Paul) and read in the Churches, that the Church had already composed and published its story (see the introduction of St. Luke), and there was a high degree of contact, etc. St. John would have a good knowlege of most of what the NT canon includes

That is a great point about the large circulation of the epistles.

I am wondering - when you say “the determining factor” is that the Church placed it in the canon, does that imply that you think the warning at the end of Revelation applies to the entire corpus of Scripture, instead of just Revelation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I refer to the canon of the Coptic Church before the influence of Protestantism, which was and is identical to the Catholic Canon.

Can you cite a Coptic canon, definition etc. on the matter, besides St. Athanasius?

Not sure what you mean by “nor to the Latin official canon.” Do you mean it is not similar or identical to the Latin Canon? In any case, there are a few things wrong with your statement here:
First, if your point is that the Latin and Coptic Orthodox canons are not similar or identical, then I would ask you to do more research, because the canon of the North African area was in general one and the same as the canon of the Latin Church from the beginning. Before the Chalcedonian schism ,the Churches of Rome and Alexandria had an extremely close relationship, each one borrowing from the other in several areas. Through the Church in Carthage the Alexandrian Church came to adopt the Latin canon very early on.

The Western text type, that of Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian and the Vetus Latina is not the same as the Alexandrian text type.

The process of canonization began at Rome, as Marcion, having being expelled (allegedly) by his own father the bishop of Sinope, made his way to Rome, and there founded his own church which rejected the OT and mutilated the NT, excising all reference to the OT in it. North Africa (witness Tertullian) did have a hand in refuting Marcion.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

On the Latin side:

The Muratorian Fragment in Rome, against Marcion:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian-latin.html

. . . [the text is broken, we presume it mentioned Matthew and Mark] at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, ‘Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming; the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, the second glorious in royal power, which is still in the future. What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you? For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; next, to the Galatians, against circumcision; then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church — for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time…

as it was combating Marcionism, the OT (that is, the Septuagint, as the Vetus Latina shows) was taken for granted.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

T
he so called Council of Rome canon, is actually a conflation with the Decretal of Pope Gelasius, amost a century later (it contains a quote from St. Augustine c. 415). Note the number of Epistles to Corinth. It seems St. Athanasius disagrees.
ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

…[btw] For the Holy Spirit is not of the Father only or of the Son only, but of the Father and the Son; for it is written: ‘He who delights in the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him’; again it is written; ‘However anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to him’. So the Holy Spirit is understood to be called of the Father and the Son, [and] of whom the Son himself in the gospel says that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father’ and ‘he will receive from me and he will make known to you’. [no need of filioque]]
II. Likewise it was said:
Now indeed the issue of the divine scriptures must be discussed, which the universal Catholic church receives or which it is required to avoid.

1. THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
   Genesis one book
   Exodus one book
   Leviticus one book
   Numbers one book
   Deuteronomy one book
   Joshua one book
   Judges one book
   Ruth one book
   Kings four books
   Chronicles two books
   150 Psalms one book
   Three books of Solomon
   proverbs one book
   ecclesiastes one book
   song of songs one book
   The same of Wisdom one book
   ecclesiasticus one book
2. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE PROPHETS:
   Isaiah one book
   Jeremiah one book
   with Cinoth i.e. his lamentations
   Ezechiel one book
   Daniel one book
   Hosea one book
   Amos one book
   Micah one book
   Joel one book
   Obadiah one book
   Jonah one book
   Nahum one book
   Habbakuk one book
   Zephaniah one book
   Haggai one book
   Zechariah one book
   Malachi one book
3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES:
   Job one book
   Tobit one book
   Esdras two books
   Ester one book
   Judith one book
   Maccabees two books
4. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT which the holy and catholic Roman church upholds and is venerated:
   Four books of the Gospels
   according to Mathew one book
   according to Mark one book
   according to Luke one book
   according to John one book
   Likewise the acts of the apostles one book
   The letters of the apostle Paul in number fourteen
   to the Romans one letter
   to the Corinthians one letter
   to the Ephesians one letter
   to the Thesalonians two letters
   to the Galatians one letter
   to the Philippians one letter
   to the Colossians one letter
   to Timothy two letters
   to Titus one letter
   to the Philemon one letter
   to the Hebrews one letter
   Likewise the apocalypse of John one book
   Likewise the canonical [catholic] letters in number seven
   of the apostle Peter two letters
   of the apostle James one letter
   of the apostle John one letter
   of the other John the elder two letters
   of the apostle Judas the Zealot one letter
   HERE ENDS THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

The Council of Carthage (419) (following up on 397 and the Synod of Hippo (393) approved the following:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
454The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

And of course, Trent:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

So that would seem to be the official Latin line.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

To this St. Athanasius says:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf…i.iii.xxv.html

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle [of Jeremiah], one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
2. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
3. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’
4. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Compare this with the Arab Orthodox in Syria, St. John of Damascus (a doctor, according to the Latin church), "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xvii.html

Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven…For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena, which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Judith and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark… the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

This is followed up almost a millenium later with “Orthodoxy’s Trent,” the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:
catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Question III: What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?

Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucar, the Crypto-Calvinist] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Second, that Jerome rejected the Septuagint is a senseless anti-Latin canard. St. Jerome specifically praised the Septuagint and in a couple of places in his writings testifies that the Septuagint is superior to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Well, no less a Latin than St. Augustine is also guilty, as he upbraided Jerome for “following the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribres,” and not “the Apostles.” (btw. I was recently shocked to find out that Jerome wasn’t canonized until over a millenium after his death. Augustine was almost automatic).

It is Jerome separating, for instance, the song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon from Daniel, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah from Jerimiah, etc. that forshadowed the work of the Protestants on the OT. His prologues (bombaxo.com/prologues.html) don’t exude praise for the Septuagint.

On his editing out of Baruch and the Epistle from Jeremiah:
bombaxo.com/blog/?p=233

And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the jealous, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer because you think this. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the envious.

I mention that because St. Athanasius specifically lists Baruch and the Epistle as in the Canon with Jereimiah, as the Septuagint and the Orthodox Fathers attest.

And for all the talk of Hebrew letters in SS Athanasius and John Damascene (and Jerome), only Jerome gave thought to give priority to the Hebrew text (btw, NOT the same as the Masoretic text today).

Third, you presume that just because the Fathers (East and West) used the Septuagint, that is tantamount to them accepting ALL the books of the Septuagint. That is simply not true (as evinced by St. Athanasius, just as one immediate example).

If we don’t assume that St. Athanasius DIDN"T mean the Septuagint for Daniel(or Theodotion, the LXX was so bad that Christians adopted Theodotion instead, even in Alexandria as Origen attests, and it was the one adopted by the Orthodox), for example, then the “additions” of Susanna, Bel and the Song of the Three Children were not included, putting further distance between his canon and the Latin Church’s as defined by Trent, and closer to the Orthodox.

Your citation proves my point exactly, because St. Athanasius’ list contains one or two less books than both the Latin and Greek canons. But since the Latin Canon also contains less books than the Greek Canon, that makes St. Athanasius’ canon more similar to the Latin’s.

Take another look.

Yes, which really is not relevant as far as my statement that St. Athanasius’ canon is more similar to the Latin and Coptic Orthodox Canon than the Eastern Orthodox canon.

Hebrews 11:35 refers to the Maccabbee martyrs (II Maccabbees), as I Corinthians 15:29 alludes to II Maccabbess 12:44 Not to mention that no Jew has ever explained how they celebrate Hannukkah. Like the rest of the NT quoting the Septuagint. Even St. Athanasius has to bow to the judgment of the NT.

The relevance, as seen above, is both Orthodox and Latin accept Maccabbees, but Athanasius doesn’t (or doesn’t name them), but the Orthodox (Greek, Arab and Copt) share with Athanasius, against the Latin church, the priority of the Septuagint over the Hebrew. (and in liturgy, evern the Latin church had to agree with Athanasius and the Orthodox on this).

You stated Pope St. Athanasius canonized the Septuagint, which he did not (acceptance of the Septuagint came WAAAAY before St. Athanasius). In the context of THIS THREAD, your claim implies that St. Athanasius canonized ALL the books of the Septuagint, which he did not.

He simply did not move the marker that his Fathers had established.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know why I said Antioch :doh2: Probably because I’ve been writing alot about St. Ignatius of Antioch lately…I was in Ephesus and I think that is where St. John’s Church is?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Yes, if I remember correctly it’s actually a little ways away from the ruins of Ephesus, by the hill of Selcuk, towards the mountain where the shrine of the Home of the Theotokos is.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

That is a great point about the large circulation of the epistles.

I am wondering - when you say “the determining factor” is that the Church placed it in the canon, does that imply that you think the warning at the end of Revelation applies to the entire corpus of Scripture, instead of just Revelation?

Blessings,
Marduk

There is that implication, because placing it in the canon sets it in that class by itself.

As you point out though, the Fathers didn’ have the same idea of canon as the Evangelicals do.

 

[Alexius]

Yes, if I remember correctly it’s actually a little ways away from the ruins of Ephesus, by the hill of Selcuk, towards the mountain where the shrine of the Home of the Theotokos is.

Yes, that’s the one. I climbed up on the ruins and looked down on the town below. It was a beautiful view…

 

[paarsurrey]

Again, the verse mentioned is the writer of Revelation writing about the book of Revelation (prophecy) itself, not the entire Bible. The bible was not even canonized at that time. There was no New Testament.

Hi

I don’t agree with you and repeat my points now numbered:

1. I think that is not a correct interpretation, as that would mean
2. that either every book of OTBible or NTBible should have had similar verses for protection and security
3. or that the writer of the Revelation knew as to what was possibly being done to other books, so he added such a verse as a witness.
4. If other book were secure and protected then he had no need to add these verses.

My opinion is that it is for the whole Bible, as these verses are often offered by our Christian friends for this purpose.

The books here mean the text of the scriptures, though these were bound in the book form later.

Please clear the above points. I respect you religion.

Thanks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Can you cite a Coptic canon, definition etc. on the matter, besides St. Athanasius?

Don’t have too much. I can, however, appeal to the decision of Pope Cyril V to truncate the Coptic Orthodox Canon (due to Protestant influence) - the books removed were identical to the books contained in the Catholic Canon. IOW, it did not include the extra books of Ezra, Psalms 151, etc.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the question of the canon was discussed again in the Coptic Church, and by order of Cyril V, the 112th Patriarch, the following books were removed from the canon: Tobit, Judith, the complement of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, the Complement to Daniel (Susanna and the three youths in the fire), and the Books of Maccabees. Otto Meinardus, Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity (AUC Press, 1965), page 41
I hope that is enough proof for you.

The Western text type, that of Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian and the Vetus Latina is not the same as the Alexandrian text type…

I’m not sure what what this has to do with our conversation. Nor do I understand the relevance of the different canons you quoted in response to the excerpt from me to which you were responding, though I am sure many will appreciate your posting of such a good history of the development of the Canon.

In any case, aside from my previous response regarding the removal of the deuterocanonical books from the Coptic canon, it is important to highlight an element about the Canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Scriptural scholars normally utilize to trace the development of the canon in different sections of the Church. Namely, the ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN THE CANONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES. THE ORDER OF BOOKS IN THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS IDENTICAL TO THE ORDER OF BOOKS OF THE LATIN CHURCH. Take whatever you will from that fact, but scriptural scholars have generally concluded the influence of the Church of Rome via Carthage on the canon of the Alexandrian Church.

Well, no less a Latin than St. Augustine is also guilty, as he upbraided Jerome for “following the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribres,” and not “the Apostles.” (btw. I was recently shocked to find out that Jerome wasn’t canonized until over a millenium after his death. Augustine was almost automatic).

And St. Jerome defended himself by pointing out to St, Augustine that he (Augustine) was misinterpreting his (Jerome’s ) motives. In his able explanation to Augustine, Jerome SPECIFICALLY praised the Septuagint, indicating that in some places the Septuagint is even more clear than the Hebrew, giving full cognizance to the Sacred Tradition of the Church in its use of the Septuagint. It seems you have access to Jerome’s response to Augustine, so I am sure you can look it up yourself (maybe you are only selectively reading Jerome in this regard? If so, it might be understandable. I believe Jerome’s response to Augustine is contained in a seperate volume of the Church Fathers series than Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate). Let me know if you cannot find it, and I will take the time to quote it for you.

It is Jerome separating, for instance, the song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon from Daniel, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah from Jerimiah, etc. that forshadowed the work of the Protestants on the OT. His prologues

This is the canard. St. Jerome DID NOT demean the value of these works by his exclusion of them from his translation. He ommitted them, HE SPECIFICALLY STATES IN HIS DEFENSE TO AUGUSTINE, not because he did not view them as sacred, but simply because he could not find the Hebrew versions of them.

(CONTINUED)