If the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, then who did?

[Cavaradossi]

Deuterocanon is a term coined in the 16th century to designate those writings which were accepted by all the local Catholic Churches later than other writings. It doesn’t mean that there are two canons. All the books of the Bible were canonized at the same time, in the same councils.

Not quite. Deuterocanon was coined to describe books which were not present in the Masoretic text (which would be called the protocanon).

Are the books excluded from Protestant Bibles the “Word of God, Scripture” as the Catholic Church says they are? If they aren’t, and can be rejected, the entire canon is in question. All the books in the original canon rest on the same authority – the authority of the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Jim Dandy

I don’t think the development of an Old Testament canon is quite as simple as you’re presenting it. There were many local canons in use, and they are in fact still used today outside of the Latin tradition. So to say that all of the books were canonized at the same time is misleading. For example, the Latin tradition does not include the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (Greek Ezra), 2 Esdras (Latin Ezra), Psalm 151 or Enoch in its canon.

The Eastern traditions all include the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, and Psalm 151 in their canons, while the Georgians also include 4 Maccabees and 2 Esdras in their canon, in contrast to the Slavs who place both books in the appendix and the Greeks who place only 4 Maccabees in the appendix, omitting 2 Esdras.

The Oriental traditions also unanimously include the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 in their canons, and all of them exclude 4 Maccabees from their canons. The Armenians include 3 Maccabees (while the rest of the Oriental traditions do not), and the Ethiopians (their canon is quite odd and unique) alone include Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2 and 3 Meqabyan (sometimes known as the Ethiopian Maccabees), and 4 Baruch in their canon, while omitting 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Ethiopians, Armenians and Syriacs include 1 and 2 Esdras in their canons, while the Copts include neither.

There is truly a great amount of variance in what books have been included in the canons of different traditions (and Latin Catholics might be surprised to find out that of all of the Apostolic Churches, their canon contains the least amount of books). Coming from this perspective, I think you might see why I would find it to be less of a big deal what books are accepted or excluded from different Old Testament canons, so long as no tradition tries to force its canon on another.

 

[Madaglan]

Here is a list of councils that took place well before the schism in 1054.
The last one listed is one that the eastern church accepted.
So why aren’t the Canons the same between east and west?

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Most of the councils you list are local and situated in either Rome or in North Africa. Important, yes, and Nicaea II even affirmed the Council of Carthage.

However, important to the canon of Council of Carthage (419) which lists the books of Scripture are its concluding words, “for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” scrollpublishing.com/store/Carthage.html In other words, it is the tradition of the churches of North Africa to read these books in church as inspired Scripture.

The canon of Byzantine Christians likewise came from a tradition of what was read in church as divine Scripture. There are, in fact, few differences between Latin and Byzantine Christians on what constitutes the canon of Scripture; where there are differences (as with additional minor books in the Byzantine canon), it can be a matter of the collection of the Septuagint that was read and passed down in the local Byzantine churches. Sometimes, the titling of books was different, and works were appended to other books. This said on the OT canon, there is, so far as I know, virtual agreement on the NT canon at the present time.

While Nicaea II is an Ecumenical Council for Latin Christians and Byzantine Christians, it has no immediate authority for non-Chalcedonian Christians (e.g. Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, Ethiopians)–those Christians who by Nicaea II were centuries no longer in communion with Rome and Constantinople, through their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. For the “Church of the East” it equally has no immediate authority.

 

[cath4alltime]

You mean it didn’t?!?! Every Protestant that I know, including me, believe that.

Some do. I am actually dealing with that exact thing on another forum, the person literally believes the Bible just appeared like it is and says if not than God lies because after all the Bible is God breathed.

 

[JonNC]

Some do. I am actually dealing with that exact thing on another forum, the person literally believes the Bible just appeared like it is and says if not than God lies because after all the Bible is God breathed.

I truly think this represents a tiny minority, at best. The premise is so ridiculous.

Jon

 

[rbarcia]

The early church had several councils, but none of them were directed by a global catholic church as we know today. To say pope so and so was acting as a global lead for the entire church is a lie. The title pope was not used at this time to refer to the bishop of rome.

Sometime around 170-175 Tatian, possibly a disciple of Justin, created a harmony of the four orthodox gospels known as the Diatessaron. This text was accepted in some circles, even being used to replace the four gospels, but this success was short lived. What this harmony reveals, however, is that the church recognized four gospels.

The four gospels are confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyons in Against the Heresies (cir. 175),
From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. A.H. III,11.8

Irenaeus also quotes from, or alludes to, almost all the documents that become the orthodox NT. These citations are mostly from Pauline works (25+ occurrences from each of these: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians). His Pauline citations/allusions include all three “Pastoral” epistles. The other general NT letters get scant recognition and a few are totally absent (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude).

The Muratorian canon is a manuscript fragment that represents the oldest known list (or canon) of the New Testament. The beginning and ending of the MS is missing. The document is dated by most scholars about 170 AD. It was discovered in a library in Italy by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, a famous historian of the time. This list consists of the following:

• (Matthew and Mark were apparently named in the beginning of the fragment which is missing)
• Luke and John
• Acts
• all 13 of Paul’s letters
• 1 and 2 John is assumed since the writer only names two letters of John
• Jude
• the Revelation of John

This listing omits Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also names a few documents that do NOT appear in the orthodox NT.

So by the middle of the second century most of the 27 documents in the orthodox NT canon had already gained widespread acceptance, especially the four gospels. It is critical to understand the importance of why only four gospels were accepted. These early fathers were very familiar with the other gospels that were floating around – Marcion’s gospel of Luke, the various gnostic gospels, and other “proto-orthodox” gospels that simply were not well accepted.

So by the second century, we have a clear picture developing. these councils in the 3rd / 4th century may have formalized things. But again, this is not the same catholic church of today, headed in ROme and such.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Let’s also remember that questioning the canonicity of said books was permitted of Catholics prior to Trent. Luther contemporary and antagonist Cardinal Cajetan also held the Deuterocanon to be not on the same level as the canon.

Friend Jon, you probably know that “deuterocanon” was a term coined in the 16th century to distinguish those writings which gained universal acceptance among all the local Catholic Churches later than others. The New Testament also has a “deuterocanon.”

What is the evidence that “questioning the canonicity of said books was permitted of Catholics prior to Trent”? Dissent occurred, as it does today, but you allege that the Church permitted her judgment to be questioned in the matter of which books were Scripture; i.e, written under God’s inspiration and which were not? Uh uh. Christ promised that the Spirit would guide the Church to all truth, not individuals.

Cardinal Cajetan was born in 1469, well after the ecumenical Council of Florence (1441) named the exact same canon codified at the local Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393, Carthage III (397) and IV (419). So there was no question about the canon in the era of Luther and Cajetan…

In A.D. 383, Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to produce a new Latin translation. The result was the Vulgate containing the canon of the Council of Rome, over which Damasus had presided the previous year. When Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse requested a list of the canonical books in 405, Pope Innocent I responded by letter, listing the identical canon of the various councils and the Vulgate, published that same year.

The Church does not formally define doctrine unless it becomes necessary. It was necessary to again name the table of contents of the Bible at Florence (1441), and at Trent (1545-63) the Church defended her canon of Scriptures against the so-called Reformers by affirming the Scriptures contained in the ancient Vulgate.

As for the NT books in question, the dispute regarding them dates back, well, virtually through the entire history of the Church, post-apostolic. Eusebius, for example.

Eusebius of Caesaria died in A.D. 336, while the canon was still in flux.

What is true about Luther is that, dispite his reservations about these books, he did translate them and include them in his 1534 translation. Obviously, he held them in high enough regard to spend the time and energy to do that.

Luther left the translation of the so-called “Apocrypha” mostly to Melancthon and Jonas. We know the (dis)regard Luther had for the 11 books he removed from the canon of both the OT and the NT by his own words.

Finally, regarding the preface to James, which is oft cited, it appeared only in the 1522 NT, and not later additions.

Luther’s German Bible of 1534 contained both Testaments. The NT, with its prefaces, was first published in 1522. Are you saying these prefaces were omitted in 1534? Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were placed in an appendix, together with their prefaces, after the books Luther accepted as Scripture, in 1534 as well as in 1522. I’ve read that the 1534 preface to James was altered to remove the most inflammatory parts, however.

Again, his words speak for themselves. Luther on James: QUOTE: I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases *(Preface to James). *

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.*(Weimar, “Tischreden “ *(5) p. 5854).END QUOTE (color added)

ISTM that Luther’s view of the disputed books was never as balck and white as modern apologists on either side wish to portray it.

Sorry, but what does ISTM mean? We don’t need to obtain Luther’s view on the Scriptures through apologists. We can read his own words from his German translation and decide for ourselves. We can also see that he set a new canon for the Bible as shown by his table of contents and added “alone” to Romans 3:28. He gave two reasons: German grammar required it and that is what St. Paul meant .

May peace and all good be yours this New Year.

Jim Dandy

 

[MartyrForJesus]

It was compiled by the real Christians before the evil Roman Church took over and suppressed them for 1100 years. Martin Luther later came and liberated the true Christians from the evil Romans.

[/sarcasm].

 

[onemangang]

Tradition plays a big role. Not all Apostolic Churches share the same canon as the Latin Church. Several of these Churches include additional books or chapters not considered canonical by the Latin Church. It has less to do with any intended deviation from Roman practice than a traditional adherence to what texts and translations have been used and passed down in the particular Church. The Greek Septuagint in early Christianity was widely held, East and West, as divinely inspired, and was the official version of the OT for the Churches, but other translations made in certain regions and in certain times played important roles as well (e.g. the Peshitta, the Vulgate).

Protestants are an interesting case in that they rejected the text as passed down in the Latin Church and sought to recover the “pure” Scripture by going back to the sources (ad fontes). They more or less rejected the Vulgate and the Septuagint and latched onto the Masoretic Text version of the OT, which has its origins in translations made by Jews after the Church was founded. The Masoretic Text does not include the deuterocanonical works found in the Latin Catholic canons, nor any other works included by the other Apostolic Churches.

I would have to look into the issue more, but my understanding is that early Protestants saw the Masoretic Text as a more ancient and original version than the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and so adopted this as the standard for their own canon and translations of the Old Testament. If you notice, Protestant apologists will disclude certain deuterocanonical books because there is no known Hebrew original, but only a Greek version known. Many modern scholars, however, now regard parts of the Greek Septuagint, which often includes these deuterocanonical books, as of more antiquity than the Masoretic Text, and will prefer the LXX reading over the MT. The Protestants, in my opinion, owe the OT version of their Bible to the Jewish editors of the 1st millenium AD. As to the NT, they received the text from both Western and Eastern Christian monastic and scholastic communities that had passed down the text in the original koine Greek language.

Great work Madaglan! I think some things could be mentioned here in light of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the criteria was to accept only the Hebrew and Aramaic (Masoretic) text, then why do Protestants not add Tobit, Baruch and Sirach! These books were found in Qumran in Hebrew or Aramaic. Since many Protestants do not accept that the Catholic/(Orthodox) Church determined the canon, then is their canon indeed closed? If so, by what authority? Just a thought!

Christ is Risen!

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8760944]Friend Jon, you probably know that “deuterocanon” was a term coined in the 16th century to distinguish those writings which gained universal acceptance among all the local Catholic Churches later than others. The New Testament also has a “deuterocanon.”

What is the evidence that “questioning the canonicity of said books was permitted of Catholics prior to Trent”? Dissent occurred, as it does today, but you allege that the Church permitted her judgment to be questioned in the matter of which books were Scripture; i.e, written under God’s inspiration and which were not? Uh uh. Christ promised that the Spirit would guide the Church to all truth, not individuals.

Jim, it is my understanding that there was even debate at Trent itself regarding the OT deuterocanon. And isn’t it true that one of the outcomes of Trent was to end dispute about it?

Cardinal Cajetan was born in 1469, well after the ecumenical Council of Florence (1441) named the exact same canon codified at the local Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393, Carthage III (397) and IV (419). So there was no question about the canon in the era of Luther and Cajetan…

For Cardinal Cajetan there was:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

And there was dispute and question by Erasmus, as well.

Luther left the translation of the so-called “Apocrypha” mostly to Melancthon and Jonas. We know the (dis)regard Luther had for the 11 books he removed from the canon of both the OT and the NT by his own words.

Well, yes, of course he had help. Why is that unreasonable? Luther himself says he believed that translating should require more than one person. If he had no regard for them, why would he even bother? Why is it nowhere in the confessions that the canon excludes them?

Luther’s German Bible of 1534 contained both Testaments. The NT, with its prefaces, was first published in 1522. Are you saying these prefaces were omitted in 1534? Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were placed in an appendix, together with their prefaces, after the books Luther accepted as Scripture, in 1534 as well as in 1522. I’ve read that the 1534 preface to James was altered to remove the most inflammatory parts, however.

What you said in the last sentence is exactly what I am saying. Is Luther not permitted to reconsider what he has written? I think, Jim, that this reflects my biggest concern - that Luther seems to be held to a different standard than others. I know you are a fair person, as our conversations are always charitable and cordial. I simply ask that you consider Luther’s time (pre-Trent) and the realities of what occured before him. Luther is not in a vacumn.

Again, his words speak for themselves. Luther on James: QUOTE: I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases *(Preface to James). *

So, why not bold the second part of his comment, or include the closing phrase, …for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. ? As I said, he was permitted to have this point of view, as other Catholics through history expressed.

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.*(Weimar, “Tischreden “ *(5) p. 5854).END QUOTE (color added)

And he was not alone. Many did not consider James the writing of an apostle.
So, why does he say this about James? BTW, I believe the correct phrase is: *** I almost feel like** throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.” *It might be at frustration about Rome using James for what he saw as work righteousness, and not in context to the rest of scripture.
Remember that the priest threw a statue (not the book) of James in the fire to heat the room.

Sorry, but what does ISTM mean?

“It seems to me”

We don’t need to obtain Luther’s view on the Scriptures through apologists. We can read his own words from his German translation and decide for ourselves.

Indeed we can, so please ignore polemicists such as O’Hare.

We can also see that he set a new canon for the Bible as shown by his table of contents and added “alone” to Romans 3:28. He gave two reasons: German grammar required it and that is what St. Paul meant .

You are aware that some of the earliest scriptures were arranged this way, based on their being disputes about them.

May peace and all good be yours this New Year.

Oh, and also with you, my friend Jim.

Jon

 

[onemangang]

I truly think this represents a tiny minority, at best. The premise is so ridiculous.

Jon

You would be surprised. There are a lot of now evangelical ex-catholics that attend some catholic bashing non-denominational “churches” that will say the Old Testament was given by the Jews (as if the canon was closed after Malachi somehow?), and most, if not all, I have spoken with, have ever even heard of the “so called council of Jamnia” The normal response from the Calvary crowd is Quote “The Apostles gave us the New Testament and the canon was closed then, the bible says so, if you read 2Peter 3:16 when Peter talks about Paul he says… As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. … See, you can clearly see that they already had all 27 books of the New Testament and there was no question to what was Scripture and what wasn’t Scripture because the bible says so!!!” End Quote!

Plus they also say that the bible is self authenticating to those who have received the Holy Spirit. That is not a minority position and often taught.

Here is a close example of that. youtu.be/cu-AdrSl3Zo

I would say that is not a minority among evangelicals

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Not quite. Deuterocanon was coined to describe books which were not present in the Masoretic text (which would be called the protocanon).

QUOTE:
DEUTEROCANONICAL. Referring to those books and passages of the Old and New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. In the Old Testament they are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14). In the New Testament are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. All of these are recognized by the Catholic Church as part of the biblical canon. Among Protestants the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are rejected as apocryphal, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.END QUOTE John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary.

I don’t think the development of an Old Testament canon is quite as simple as you’re presenting it. There were many local canons in use, and they are in fact still used today outside of the Latin tradition. So to say that all of the books were canonized at the same time is misleading. For example, the Latin tradition does not include the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (Greek Ezra), 2 Esdras (Latin Ezra), Psalm 151 or Enoch in its canon.

I meant that all the ‘books’ discerned by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be inspired (God-breathed) Scripture were canonized at the same time at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), which resulted in the Vulgate, Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397) and Carthage IV (419). The reason I made that comment is that some Protestants claim the Catholic Church added the writings they reject at Trent.

The Eastern traditions all include the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, and Psalm 151 in their canons, while the Georgians also include 4 Maccabees and 2 Esdras in their canon, in contrast to the Slavs who place both books in the appendix and the Greeks who place only 4 Maccabees in the appendix, omitting 2 Esdras.

You mean the Eastern Orthodox.

The Oriental traditions also unanimously include the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 in their canons, and all of them exclude 4 Maccabees from their canons. The Armenians include 3 Maccabees (while the rest of the Oriental traditions do not), and the Ethiopians (their canon is quite odd and unique) alone include Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2 and 3 Meqabyan (sometimes known as the Ethiopian Maccabees), and 4 Baruch in their canon, while omitting 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Ethiopians, Armenians and Syriacs include 1 and 2 Esdras in their canons, while the Copts include neither.

I understand the Ethiopian Orthodox have the longest canon, with 81 books.

There is truly a great amount of variance in what books have been included in the canons of different traditions (and Latin Catholics might be surprised to find out that of all of the Apostolic Churches, their canon contains the least amount of books). Coming from this perspective, I think you might see why I would find it to be less of a big deal what books are accepted or excluded from different Old Testament canons, so long as no tradition tries to force its canon on another.

Protestants have subtracted from the oriignal canon; the Orthodox have added to it.

There’s an interesting Methodist website, Which Bible? Whose Canon?

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

 

[Cavaradossi]

QUOTE:
DEUTEROCANONICAL. Referring to those books and passages of the Old and New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. In the Old Testament they are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14). In the New Testament are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. All of these are recognized by the Catholic Church as part of the biblical canon. Among Protestants the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are rejected as apocryphal, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.END QUOTE John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary.

Forget the semantics then. I was always told that protestants rejected the so-called “deuterocanonical” books because they were not present in the Masoretic text.

I meant that all the ‘books’ discerned by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be inspired (God-breathed) Scripture were canonized at the same time at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), which resulted in the Vulgate, Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397) and Carthage IV (419). The reason I made that comment is that some Protestants claim the Catholic Church added the writings they reject at Trent.

All local western councils. Carthage was accepted later at Trullo, which was accepted at Nicaea II. Of course the acceptance of that canon doesn’t seem to have stopped the use of ‘extra’ books in the East.

You mean the Eastern Orthodox.

No, I mean the Slavic, Byzantine, and Georgian traditions, not just their Churches. Perhaps the Latin Church has managed to force its canon on the Eastern Catholic Churches (I don’t know for sure if that is the case), but that doesn’t mean those books aren’t part of their heritage.

I understand the Ethiopian Orthodox have the longest canon, with 81 books.

Yes, their biblical canon is quite unique.

Protestants have subtracted from the oriignal canon; the Orthodox have added to it.

Just because your canon developed differently from ours doesn’t mean that we added to it, as that would run on the erroneous assumption that the Latin canon predates the different local canons, and that all of the different traditions accepted the Latin Canon since antiquity (quite a stretch).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

They did, and I have no problem admitting it. But that doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

Writings that did not conform to the teaching of the Catholic Church were not accepted into the New Testament canon. Protestants have interpretation problems.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Forget the semantics then. I was always told that protestants rejected the so-called “deuterocanonical” books because they were not present in the Masoretic text.

In reality, Protestants reject the “deuterocanon” because their hero, Martin Luther, rejected them… Luther’s excuse was that the canon adopted by the Jews excluded writings extant in any language but Hebrew, and so did he – though they had been “Scripture” to Christians for centuries. (Some of his critics say his target was II Maccabees, and this was his strategy for getting rid of it.) So the Jews who rejected Jesus set the OT canon for Luther and all Protestants. But the early Church adopted 46 books (scrolls) of the Septuagint (LXX), having inherited them from the first-century synagogues of Jesus and the Apostles. The Dead Sea scrolls are evidence that the “deuterocanon” were originally in Hebrew. The Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew. Only two books from the LXX – Wisdom and II Maccabees – were originally written in Greek.

The 1611 KJV followed Luther’s example and included the “deuterocanon” in an appendix between the Testaments. In 1827, the British and Foreign Bible Society announced that no aid would be given to any publisher who henceforth included them, and all subsequent Protestant Bibles finally followed the other Reformers’ wishes and completely omitted the “deuterocanon.” However, Luther’s rejection of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation didn’t stick – the first KJV treated them as part of the NT canon.

All local western councils. Carthage was accepted later at Trullo, which was accepted at Nicaea II. Of course the acceptance of that canon doesn’t seem to have stopped the use of ‘extra’ books in the East.

Since Carthage was accepted at Trullo and Nicea II, and the ecumenical Council of Nicea II is accepted by the Orthodox, I find it strange that “extra” books were added (or continued in use). I really am indifferent about which writings the Orthodox additionally accept, since I’m not Orthodox. (I do understand that the Orthodox don’t have the same regard for a fixed “canon” as does the Catholic Church). As a former Protestant, however, I am very critical of the subtractions.

No, I mean the Slavic, Byzantine, and Georgian traditions, not just their Churches. Perhaps the Latin Church has managed to force its canon on the Eastern Catholic Churches (I don’t know for sure if that is the case), but that doesn’t mean those books aren’t part of their heritage.

The Catholic Church (Latin Rite) didn’t “force” its canon on any other Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches returned to Rome voluntarily and accepted her teachings and her canon, but retain their own theology. The CC has no objection to any of the 21 sui juris Churches using whatever writings they wish, provided they are not considered “Scripture” and used in the Divine Liturgy. I’ve read that non-canonical texts are used in Vespers or other occasions outside the Divine Liturgy in one or more Eastern Catholic Churches (and perhaps by the Latin Church as well?), but don’t recall the source.

Just because your canon developed differently from ours doesn’t mean that we added to it, as that would run on the erroneous assumption that the Latin canon predates the different local canons, and that all of the different traditions accepted the Latin Canon since antiquity (quite a stretch).

Formulation of a fixed “canon” of Scripture was accomplished by the undivided Catholic Church at the end of the fourth Christian century. It was formally accepted by the East at Nicea II in 787, if not before.

Quoting the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, considered an (Eastern) Pan-Orthodox
synod, presided over by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus:

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 ELC} 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 <156> 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.END QUOTE

Peace be with you.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8791183]In reality, Protestants reject the “deuterocanon” because their hero, Martin Luther, rejected them…

Not all Protestants thinkLuther was a hero. Some think he was way too Catholic.

Luther’s excuse was that the canon adopted by the Jews excluded writings extant in any language but Hebrew, and so did he – though they had been “Scripture” to Christians for centuries. (Some of his critics say his target was II Maccabees, and this was his strategy for getting rid of it.)

So, what was Jerome’s “excuse” for not considering them canon? what was Cajetan’s? Instead of using a polemic such as “excuse”, why not say “Luther gave as his reason…”, even though you don’t agree with him? Heck, I’m not completely sure*** I*** agree with him (and sinse the Lutherans confessions don’t set a canon, I’m allowed to do so, just as Luther and others were allowed to do so before Trent). And it is a fact that Lutherans have historically used the D-C’s liturgically.

So the Jews who rejected Jesus set the OT canon for Luther and all Protestants. But the early Church adopted 46 books (scrolls) of the Septuagint (LXX), having inherited them from the first-century synagogues of Jesus and the Apostles. The Dead Sea scrolls are evidence that the “deuterocanon” were originally in Hebrew. The Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew. Only two books from the LXX – Wisdom and II Maccabees – were originally written in Greek.

Again, a polemic. Think of what reasons Jerome gave for questioning the D-C’s, and Cajetan references Jerome.

The 1611 KJV followed Luther’s example and included the “deuterocanon” in an appendix between the Testaments. In 1827, the British and Foreign Bible Society announced that no aid would be given to any publisher who henceforth included them, and all subsequent Protestant Bibles finally followed the other Reformers’ wishes and completely omitted the “deuterocanon.” However, Luther’s rejection of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation didn’t stick – the first KJV treated them as part of the NT canon.

Again, Luther ddn’t reject them. He, like others before him, recognized the disputed nature of them. And Lutherans have always viewed them as canon.

Since Carthage was accepted at Trullo and Nicea II, and the ecumenical Council of Nicea II is accepted by the Orthodox, I find it strange that “extra” books were added (or continued in use). I really am indifferent about which writings the Orthodox additionally accept, since I’m not Orthodox. (I do understand that the Orthodox don’t have the same regard for a fixed “canon” as does the Catholic Church). As a former Protestant, however, I am very critical of the subtractions.

fine, I just ask that we be critical without polemics.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jim, it is my understanding that there was even debate at Trent itself regarding the OT deuterocanon. And isn’t it true that one of the outcomes of Trent was to end dispute about it?

I’ve never heard that there was a debate at Trent regarding the OT deuterocanon. I’ll do my best to look into that. It wouldn’t seem so, since Trent affirmed the Scriptures contained in the ancient Vulgate – IOW, the canons established by the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage III and IV and approved by several Popes. Trent defended the Church against Protestant attacks on the canon of Scripture and her doctrines.

For Cardinal Cajetan there was:

I was pointing out that the criticism that “local councils” defined the canon had long been put to rest before Cardinal Cajetan was even born; i.e., by Nicea II in 787 and Florence in 1441.

As I understand your Cajetan quote, he was quoting Saint Jerome. (?)

And there was dispute and question by Erasmus, as well.

There are dissenters in every age. But Roma locuta est, causa finita est. [When] Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Well, yes, of course he had help. Why is that unreasonable? Luther himself says he believed that translating should require more than one person.

It’s perfectly reasonable. I was just showing off my vast knowledge (but my knowledge is anything but vast). I apologize if I offended you. .

If he had no regard for them, why would he even bother? Why is it nowhere in the confessions that the canon excludes them?

I don’t recall the Confessions dealing with the canon? It’s in Luther’s Bible. The title page of the appendix in which he placed the “deuterocanonical” writings has this explanatory remark:

Apocrypha – that is books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read. (underscore mine)

What you said in the last sentence is exactly what I am saying. Is Luther not permitted to reconsider what he has written? I think, Jim, that this reflects my biggest concern - that Luther seems to be held to a different standard than others. I know you are a fair person, as our conversations are always charitable and cordial. I simply ask that you consider Luther’s time (pre-Trent) and the realities of what occured before him. Luther is not in a vacumn.

Jon, I would be critical of anyone who presumed to alter the canon of Scripture, and even, in one instance (Romans 3:28), the Scripture itself. It’s my opinion (shared by many) that Luther was a sick man. I am very compassionate toward him for the brutal treatment he received from his parents, which was the cause (I believe) of his mental illness. But what he did in splintering Christendom and removing the “deuterocanonical” writings from the canon has had serious and enduring consequences for Christianity. His removal of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the NT canon, regrettable as it was, has had little or no impact. But that should be considered, IMO, when evaluating Luther.

So, why not bold the second part of his comment, or include the closing phrase, …for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. ? As I said, he was permitted to have this point of view, as other Catholics through history expressed.

I’ve never read any criticism by any Catholic of the New Testament, after the beginning of the fifth century when the canon had been discerned. Can you please provide cites or quotes? Who, other than himself, permitted Luther to have this point of view of the NT?

And he was not alone. Many did not consider James the writing of an apostle.

Please provide cites. It doesn’t matter who wrote James. It is inspired (God-breathed) Scripture. And Luther had no authority to remove it (and other books) from the canon.

So, why does he say this about James? BTW, I believe the correct phrase is: *** I almost feel like*** throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.” It might be at frustration about Rome using James for what he saw as work righteousness, and not in context to the rest of scripture.

The quote came from a Lutheran source. Thanks for clarifying it. By “works righteousness” did Luther mean justification or salvation by works? He was wrong.

Remember that the priest threw a statue (not the book) of James in the fire to heat the room.

But Luther meant the book, right?

Indeed we can, so please ignore polemicists such as O’Hare.

Who is O’Hare?

You are aware that some of the earliest scriptures were arranged this way, based on their being disputes about them.

There were disputes about certain writings, as to whether or not they were Scripture, but once canonized as Scripture by the Church, the case was closed.

Eusebius, for example, writing in first quarter of the fourth century, recorded 1 Clement among the “Recognized Books” and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as “Disputed Books.” When the Church discerned the canon at the end of the fourth century, all the “disputed” books were canonized but 1 Clement didn’t make the cut.

I’ve often wondered why Luther didn’t include 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John among his rejected books. The deuterocanon of the NT consists of all these “disputed” books, plus Mark 16:9-20. Why reject the entire OT “deuterocanon” and only part of the “deuterocanon” of the NT? We can only speculate.

It’s a pleasure corresponding with you, Jon. I apologize for this lengthy post.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

Jim Dandy

 

[juan_e_flores]

1st samuel 3:21 GOD will always manifest himself in his word no one gave us the bible we are all instruments of god for his GLORY.So GOD is the one who gave us the bible.

 

[onemangang]

1st samuel 3:21 GOD will always manifest himself in his word no one gave us the bible we are all instruments of god for his GLORY.So GOD is the one who gave us the bible.

All are in agreement that God gave us the bible, the question is how did He deliver it. By what medium did the Holy Spirit guide men to all truth in discerning, compiling and declaring scripture? I don’t know if you have followed the discussion from the beginning? If not, it’s worth going back and reading through. It’s a great discussion It is really beneficial to start from the beginning to get the fullness of the Truth. Pun intended! Here is a link that may be a helpful aid to discerning some of the discussion! home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm.

 

[CopticChristian]

**The Bible was compiled by councils that existed before the split of Rome and the East. **I really don’t think it matters who compiled it so much as it does that the Holy Spirit inspired individuals to write the Word of God and then later to use others to compile it and keep it from several other heretical writings. **The Roman Catholic church as it is today did Not put the Bible together. ** That is a pretty simple matter of history. For those that would argue that it did, the mere fact that the East has a different set of books in their canon than Rome does pretty much shoots holes galore in that theory.

Here you say that the Bible was compiled prior to the split of the year 1000 as it concerns the east. You then say that the Roman Catholic Church as it is today did not put the Bible together.

This suggests that you see a difference in the Church today and the Church in the year lets say 999…

Outline for me the differences so that I may understand it as you see it.

 

[CopticChristian]

The unified Apostolic Church. The Proto-Catholic/Orthodox split church. Technically the “Catholic” Church gave it to us, in the sense that both the Orthodox communion and Catholic communion is “Catholic” in name; but in the conventional sense “Catholic” usually means the Latin West, and the Latin Church was only half of that which gave us the Bible.

Thus, I usually say the “Early Church” or “First Church” and not “Catholic Church.”

So,

If God wants His Church united and looks down and sees Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic East/West united in 7 Sacraments with the same deposit of Faith…is it divided by God, because God is faithful or just squabbling for a time?