Is the Canon of Scripture closed?

[Aelred_Minor]

if I remember right, the council of Florence was an eumenical council that included the Orthodox. The council of Trent reassured Catholics of their pre-existing canon that was being challenged by Protestants.

If you look at all the ancient Christian bibles in existence today they all use the Septuagint for the OT and they all have 46 books. So it would seem to me that if the Orthodox did reunite with us then going back to 46 books as their canon would be like going back to their ancient roots.

The Septuagint also generally included other books not in the Catholic canon, including some considered canonical by the Orthodox.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The Septuagint also generally included other books not in the Catholic canon, including some considered canonical by the Orthodox.

The only ancient copies of the Septuagint we have still in existence include 46 books. There are no Jewish copies remaining. They are all from Christian bibles. The earliest Christian bibles still in existence are from the 4th century.

Some critics will say that we can not know if Jews used 7 books called deutrocanonicals in their Septuagint since we have no Jewish copies. All we can know they say is that the Christians had the 46 books in their bible. However, it would be hard for the Christians to add 7 books to their OT. It is more likely that the Alexandrian Jews had 46 books in their Septuagint and the Christians inherited them.

 

[ahs]

I don’t understand why you would want Protestant’s to weigh in, they don’t even want the Bible we already have. They definitely consider the Canon closed at 66 books.

I know, and that’s where my poiont leads to. How do they know it closed? Who said so and when? How do they know they have a Book of the Inspired Word? I guess I’m just thinking out loud here…but this just intrigues me…the question “Is the Canon of Scripture Closed” and all that a solid answer would imply. For example:

-“Luther or Calvin said so!”? Then all Christianity went without a Canon of Scripture until the mid-1500’s. Kinda hard to support sola scriptura when a valid Canon didn’t exist until the 1500’s.

-“We accept the Bible as it was before Constantinople corrupted Christianity!” Well, there was not one before that time. Your Bible then would be the Septuagint plus the 4 Gospels and then…who would you refer to to find what other Books/Letters were used and are Inspired…because not all that were written “made it” into the Canon…they’d have to accept Shepard of Hermas, Letters of Clement, Barnabas…etc…

-“We accept the Bible in its unaltered form as it currently exists today!” How do you know it is in “unaltered form”?

-“Well, we accept the original Canon…the Codex.” There were at least 4 versions of these (to my limited nderstanding) and none were the same, nor were they identical to any version of the Bible today, Catholic or Protestant.

-“We know the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and cannot be added to or subtracted from!” Really? How do you know? What verse in Scripture says, “…and the Word of God consists of these Books…but not these…”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The only ancient copies of the Septuagint we have still in existence include 46 books. There are no Jewish copies remaining. They are all from Christian bibles. The earliest Christian bibles still in existence are from the 4th century.

Some critics will say that we can not know if Jews used 7 books called deutrocanonicals in their Septuagint since we have no Jewish copies. All we can know they say is that the Christians had the 46 books in their bible. However, it would be hard for the Christians to add 7 books to their OT. It is more likely that the Alexandrian Jews had 46 books in their Septuagint and the Christians inherited them.

I think you are confusing the fact that the Septuagint contained all the books found in the Catholic Old Testament with the myth that it contained these and only these. In fact, it also contained a number of other books, such as 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras, depending on how you number them), and the Prayer of Manasseh, which the Orthodox define as canonical but the Catholic Church does not. Then again it also contained a book called the Psalms of Solomon which the Orthodox do not consider canonical either, so it’s not as if either Church considers a book being in the Septuagint proof that it should be considered canonical Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Hah! I love it when both Catholic sides are essentially right, even when they say opposing things (yes! the Canon of Scripture is closed! and no! the Canon of Scripture is not closed!)

per the great Jimmy Akin:

It thus would seem that the canon remains theoretically open on the supposition of the discovery of an unknown apostolic book.

Since we do not have (and are overwhelmingly unlikely to ever have) a previously unknown book of demonstrably apostolic origin, we are unlikely to find ourselves in the above situation. In the absence of that circumstance, we must regard the canon as practically closed. The Church considered numerous works purporting apostolic origin and found them lacking. They are thus not to be considered canonical.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think you are confusing the fact that the Septuagint contained all the books found in the Catholic Old Testament with the myth that it contained these and only these. In fact, it also contained a number of other books, such as 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras, depending on how you number them), and the Prayer of Manasseh, which the Orthodox define as canonical but the Catholic Church does not. Then again it also contained a book called the Psalms of Solomon which the Orthodox do not consider canonical either, so it’s not as if either Church considers a book being in the Septuagint proof that it should be considered canonical Scripture.

In addition, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

 

[gkrohm]

I a sense the Canon has been open up to and through Trent as new manuscripts are discovered they deflect and alter the translations of the books we recognize in the Bible. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery was recognized at Trent as not being part of the gospel of John as it existed in the 2nd century. Countless phrases and wording variations are sifted and winnowed by scripture scholars to come up with the best version of a particular book of the bible. Given the periodic discovery of more ancient and/or authoritative manuscripts (eg. Nag Hammadi, Egypt or Dead Sea Scrolls) we should expect this process of slight modification in the text to continue.

 

[gkrohm]

In addition, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Good post. Sinaiticus and Viaticanus are two of the most important “witnesses” of the canonical texts. Yet, they disagree on which books are to be included in the canon.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jimmy Akin said that theoreticaly that 3d and 4th Esdras and The prayer of Manasseh which were included as an appendix to the vulgate but not in the Canon could possibly be accepted because they have been used by the Orthodox and the Catholic Church in the liturgy.

“Let perpetual light shine upon them” is not in the Catholic bible but IS used in the Catholic liturgy and is considered canonical by the orthodox.

In my opinion these are the ONLY books that could be added to the Canon because they are the only books that have been used in the liturgy.

Only a book used and prayed by the church in the liturgy could POSSIBLY be added.

For all intensive purposes the Canon is closed.

I’d say it is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% closed!

 

[Hamlet123]

For all intensive purposes the Canon is closed.

I’d say it is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% closed!

This is enligting to me. I have thought that (for sure 100%) that the canon is/was closed. But here is an important issue that is a slippery slope regarding this discussion: What is in IS CANON! and can not be taken out.

 

[QuickCat]

The Council of Trent confirmed and defined authoritatively what books comprised the Bible. By definition that means there are no “missing” or “yet to be found” books.

I also asked a priest friend of mine and he told me this:

" The Deposit of Faith was fully revealed through Jesus. The OT which was a partial revelation of God’s truth was completed with the coming of Jesus. The Canon is the list of the Biblical Books authoritatively recognized by the Church as inspired and normative for its teaching and practice. If part of the Deposit of Faith revealed fully in Jesus, has remained unrecognized, hence omitted from the Canon, then for 2000 years the Church has been deprived of a part of the full Deposit of Faith. And this is ridiculous as Divine Providence would never have allowed it.

So there can be no new addition to the listed books of the Bible which constitute the established Canon."

It seems to me that the Lord Jesus Christ confirmed all the O.T. prophecies concerning Himself * and the future earthly kingdom for Israel. Paul says that it was given to him to ‘fulfill’ * the Word of God. Note: Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; The word “fulfill” is: Strong’s Greek Dictionary
4137. πληροω pleroo
Search for G4137 in KJVSL
πληροω pleroo play-ro’-o
from 4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:—accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

Grace and Peace,
QC**

 

[ajcstr]

I’ve actually been thinking about this lately too. If we were to have unity with the Orthodox, the canon would be something that would HAVE to be discussed and I agree with you, that the wording seems to leave open the possibility of including those in the Orthodox canon. I am really interested in other people thoughts about this.

Per Gary Michuta:

“On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.”

I never knew 3 Maccabbes was in the Vulgate

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Which is precisely why it is theoretically possible for these and only these books to in the future be included in the Canon.

They are the Vulgate–they have not been precisely and definitively rejected–and sometimes they are used in the sacred liturgy. But just because they COULD be included in the Canon doesn’t mean they ever will be included in the Canon.

 

[septimine]

I read some of them – 3-4 esdras and 3-4 Maccabees don’t seem all that remarkable but I’m wondering at least theoretically what’s in them that ISN’T in the 73 book catholic bibles? I just don’t recall anything that stood out. The only odd thing was that 4 Esdras mentions some prophecies about Arabs being a problem for Israel, which is odd considering that Arabs weren’t a big problem for Israel until Islam came about in AD 500 – kind of a gap – but even then it’s possible that such a thing was coincidental and possibly Arabs were more known in the Levant than we give them credit for.

 

[Procrop]

I find this thread interesting in that most of the writers make a distinction between the “Catholic” canon and the “Orthodox” canon. The Catholic Church really includes both.

The canon of the Greek Church is based on Tradition which dates from long before the schism of 1054. There is little question that it is “Catholic” by any definition. Likewise the canon of the Latin Church dates to the early centuries of the church and is based on translations from the Greek version of the Bible.

In reality the canon was not an issue at all until the Protestant Reformation, which removed numerous books from the Protestant version of the Old Testament.

 

[ajcstr]

I find this thread interesting in that most of the writers make a distinction between the “Catholic” canon and the “Orthodox” canon. The Catholic Church really includes both.

The canon of the Greek Church is based on Tradition which dates from long before the schism of 1054. There is little question that it is “Catholic” by any definition. Likewise the canon of the Latin Church dates to the early centuries of the church and is based on translations from the Greek version of the Bible.

In reality the canon was not an issue at all until the Protestant Reformation, which removed numerous books from the Protestant version of the Old Testament.

I think this distinction came up when one of the posters wondered what would happen if the Catholic and Orthodox would ever come out of schism. Would the Catholic Church then accept as cannon the additional books that the Orthodox recognize?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think you are confusing the fact that the Septuagint contained all the books found in the Catholic Old Testament with the myth that it contained these and only these. In fact, it also contained a number of other books, such as 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras, depending on how you number them), and the Prayer of Manasseh, which the Orthodox define as canonical but the Catholic Church does not. Then again it also contained a book called the Psalms of Solomon which the Orthodox do not consider canonical either, so it’s not as if either Church considers a book being in the Septuagint proof that it should be considered canonical Scripture.

No. I was aware of that but I am only stating what Fr. Mitch Pacwa said on his CD (ignatiusproductions.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=IP&Product_Code=6595&Category_Code=CD )

Now, it is possible that Fr. Mitch Pacwa when he said all copies of the Septuagint include 46 books that he was not denying that their was not more than 46. Also, he hypothesized that the Alexandrian Jews also had the 46 books in their Septuagint even though we have no copies of the Septuagint today except those found in Christian bibles. Therefore we do not know for sure how many books the Jews had, only that the Christians had the 46 books.

I never said anything that Fr. Mitch did not mention. However, he did not specifically state that they did not have more than 46 books. But all he mentions is 46 books and the 7 deuterocanonicals on his cd. It is unfortunate that he did not address this issue.

I have heard previously that the Septuagint had more than 46 books as you have stated. So I was aware of that. However, given what Fr. Mitch said on his cd, that the only copies of the Septuagint we have are found in the Christian bibles, then the only place we could get numbers from is from the Christian bibles. Unless, we have some other source of info that I am not aware of.

I don’t disagree with you when you say there were more than just 46 books as that is what the evidence suggests. However, I am interested in physical evidence rather than just opinion. Therefore, do you have any examples of ancient Christian bibles online where the contents of the Septuagint could be examined? I have looked at the codex vaticanus and the codex sinaiticus but both of these appear to have incomplete copies of the Septuagint. Do you know of a complete example of the Septuagint online?

Also, I have heard that the Orthodox had a council in the 17th or 18th century where they determined their canon. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I heard on EWTN radio. Also 2 of their books I think were written in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD? I could be wrong about that also.

Fr. Mitch said that 1 Maccabees was composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic - i don’t remember) but 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek. He didn’t mention 3 or 4.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Also, on a related issue I was considering downloading this kindle Orthodox bible as it has commentary from the early Church Fathers (see amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Study-Bible-ebook/dp/B000XPNVFI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AZC9TZ4UC9CFC&qid=1337971887&sr=8-1 ).

I downloaded the sample to my kindle device. But unfortunately it includes in the introduction to the bible a history lesson of why the Orthodox Church is the true Church and the Roman Church is not. After listening to their highly biased version of history it kind of turned me off from getting the bible. I have not heard of a bible that includes bashing the Catholic Church in it. A bible should be only about the bible and not about disputes between Churches. It is unfortunate they can not stop thinking about their dispute with the Roman Church enough to not include it in their bible.

Note: Also, they say that their bible uses the LXX Septuagint. That is their only mention of explaining which books are in their bible.

It’s amazing how almost all the arguments that Orthodox use to claim that they are the true Church are the same as what the Catholic Church uses to claim the same - examples: Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and orthodoxy.

 

[haastiin]

CAF 01
Actually it does make sense to allow for both positions – at least from a human standpoint. Salvation is a gift of Grace to every human. Scripture is the mode of conveyance for that knowledge. Humanity has no way to assess the wisdom of God except through scripture and observation of His creation. Scripture stands against apostasy but does not abolish it. In Hebrews 1:1-2 we read:* In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.* Faith is a mystery. God calls whomever he wills to call, and he calls all with such integrity and generosity that the manner of the call is as diverse as God’s omnipotence allows. We take off as big a chunk of that omnipotence as we can handle according to the gifts we receive.

The question I see is whether a large or smaller canon points to a larger or smaller strength or a larger or smaller weakness? If God chooses to shout to me and whisper to you, which one of us has not been called by God? God alone is wise enough to call each of us in a way suited to the way by which he created us. We earthlings do not have the wisdom to decide who has not been called or who has not answered. Every good thing that is part of Creation – including each of us – is a confirmation of his Love, a sharing of his Light, a testimony to his Truth, and a promise of his Life. In God’s plan for my life he led me to be a Catholic and to reveal his Love, Light, Truth and Life to me in a very specific Way.

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. God is gonna do what God does which includes calling all souls to himself in every way he can. I know only two or three of those ways and, thanks to his Grace in the gift of discernment, I know them as Good because he prepared me to know them. How he has prepared others is his to know, not mine. WE may have closed the Book; perhaps HE has, too. God knows. I don’t, but I trust what he’s told me so far.

 

[gkrohm]

This is a very interesting thread. I am learning a lot about the orthodox and jewish traditions relation to their canonical scriptures. I too feel that God speaks to his children in manifold ways. It seems to me we artificially limit God’s power by erecting walls around what He has revealed and not revealed.