P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Are there any lists from the Jews of that time that list more than the 22/24 book canon?
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
The late 1st to mid-2nd century apocryphal work 2 Esdras (4 Esdras) 14:38-48 indicates the growing dominance of the idea of a limited canon, and resistance to it:
And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink.” Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory; and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed. And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.
And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” And I did so.
This passage occurs in a redescription of Ezra’s reception of the Scriptures. The number of the twenty-four books correspond with the books in the Tanakh that became dominant in the Amoraic period (200-500 AD) onward. Yet the passage claims a higher authority for the seventy scrolls that are to be given only to the wise. In other words, a late 1st-century push to establish the exclusive authority of a 24-book canon seems to be counteracted here by an attempt to claim higher authority for certain books outside that canon.
While Josephus and 2 Esdras give the apparent final results of the effort to establish a closed canon, in early rabbinic literature we see ongoing internal arguments bearing on such a process. For example, Proverbs along with Ecclesiastes were once “withdrawn” because they were long ago thought to be mere “parables and not from the Scriptures.” Along similar lines, there were discussions on whether or not certain books “defile the hands;” early rabbinic texts suggest that this question was raised on books such as Esther, Ben Sira (Sirach), Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. By 200 AD, the above works, with the exception of Ben Sira, were finally accepted in the canon. Thus, we start to see Greek translations of these marginal works beginning to appear, a part of the effort at the time to produce Greek translations which better match the proto-Masoretic Hebrew Bible than the Septuagint. On the other hand, Ben Sira is still quoted by some authorities, with the agreement that the work does not “defile the hands,” even if it was outside the canon. Indeed, Ben Sira is mentioned in the Talmud as one of the “outside works” prohibited by Rabbi Akiva (Sanhedrin 10.1).
Taken together, these 1st and 2nd-century passages suggest three things:
And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink.” Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory; and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed. And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.
And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” And I did so.
This passage occurs in a redescription of Ezra’s reception of the Scriptures. The number of the twenty-four books correspond with the books in the Tanakh that became dominant in the Amoraic period (200-500 AD) onward. Yet the passage claims a higher authority for the seventy scrolls that are to be given only to the wise. In other words, a late 1st-century push to establish the exclusive authority of a 24-book canon seems to be counteracted here by an attempt to claim higher authority for certain books outside that canon.
While Josephus and 2 Esdras give the apparent final results of the effort to establish a closed canon, in early rabbinic literature we see ongoing internal arguments bearing on such a process. For example, Proverbs along with Ecclesiastes were once “withdrawn” because they were long ago thought to be mere “parables and not from the Scriptures.” Along similar lines, there were discussions on whether or not certain books “defile the hands;” early rabbinic texts suggest that this question was raised on books such as Esther, Ben Sira (Sirach), Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. By 200 AD, the above works, with the exception of Ben Sira, were finally accepted in the canon. Thus, we start to see Greek translations of these marginal works beginning to appear, a part of the effort at the time to produce Greek translations which better match the proto-Masoretic Hebrew Bible than the Septuagint. On the other hand, Ben Sira is still quoted by some authorities, with the agreement that the work does not “defile the hands,” even if it was outside the canon. Indeed, Ben Sira is mentioned in the Talmud as one of the “outside works” prohibited by Rabbi Akiva (Sanhedrin 10.1).
Taken together, these 1st and 2nd-century passages suggest three things:
- In formative Judaism there is an emerging widespread concern about which books are authoritative and which are not.
- As time passes, there appears to be increasing concensus on the contents of the Jewish canon: either 22 or 24 books/scrolls. 2nd and 3rd century testimonies from Church Fathers confirms this expression (as the Melito of Sardis quote above).
- In each case, the concern to define this collection (or a more larger one, as in 2 Esdras) as uniquely authoritative occurs in the context of polemic against other groups: whether between formative Judaism and its opponents (2 Esdras 14:44-48) or Jews and gentiles (Against Apion 1.38-41).
P
patrick457
Guest
(Part 3)
Such concern for increasing definition of a canon over and above other texts fits well with the focus of Judaism during this time of consolidation during the wake of the destruction of the Temple. Whereas the preceding period was characterized by an intense diversity in types of Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, to name a few), the period post-70 AD sees the gradual emergence of a dominant and coherent form of Judaism. This new form of Judaism (“Rabbinic Judaism”) is reflected in the Mishnah and other documents and the increasing dominance of the rabbinic schools. While other forms of Judaism continued to coexist with the rabbinic one, ultimately no form of Judaism seems to have survived and flourished which did not accomodate itself in some way to the new rabbinic structures and texts which by this point is becoming increasingly dominant (with Karaite Judaism being a possible exception).
Only well into the midst of this consolidation process do we see the definitive numbering and particular organization of the books presently found in the Tanakh. Thus, most Tannaitic passages still speak of a bipartite canon consisting of the ‘Law’ (Torah) and the ‘Prophets’ and record continuing disputes about the status of certain books (the issue now is whether to exclude said books from the canon, as some kind of authority of these books are already presupposed in many of these discussions).
It is only during the late Tannaitic (70-200 AD) and early Amoraic (200-400 AD), when the Jewish community is more fully consolidated, that the final steps to ‘canonization’ were done. From this period onward do we only begin to see the first full-fledged establishment of the tripartite, 24-book Tanakh that we know of today.
So, in sum: the Jews themselves were only starting to have an idea of a closed Biblical canon when Christianity emerged. The Tanakh itself had only reached its present 24-book, three-part form after decades of consolidation, discussion, decisions, and even opposition, long after Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became separate from one another. It, like the decision of the Christian Biblical canon, was a gradual process, not something that merely popped out of thin air one day.
Such concern for increasing definition of a canon over and above other texts fits well with the focus of Judaism during this time of consolidation during the wake of the destruction of the Temple. Whereas the preceding period was characterized by an intense diversity in types of Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, to name a few), the period post-70 AD sees the gradual emergence of a dominant and coherent form of Judaism. This new form of Judaism (“Rabbinic Judaism”) is reflected in the Mishnah and other documents and the increasing dominance of the rabbinic schools. While other forms of Judaism continued to coexist with the rabbinic one, ultimately no form of Judaism seems to have survived and flourished which did not accomodate itself in some way to the new rabbinic structures and texts which by this point is becoming increasingly dominant (with Karaite Judaism being a possible exception).
Only well into the midst of this consolidation process do we see the definitive numbering and particular organization of the books presently found in the Tanakh. Thus, most Tannaitic passages still speak of a bipartite canon consisting of the ‘Law’ (Torah) and the ‘Prophets’ and record continuing disputes about the status of certain books (the issue now is whether to exclude said books from the canon, as some kind of authority of these books are already presupposed in many of these discussions).
It is only during the late Tannaitic (70-200 AD) and early Amoraic (200-400 AD), when the Jewish community is more fully consolidated, that the final steps to ‘canonization’ were done. From this period onward do we only begin to see the first full-fledged establishment of the tripartite, 24-book Tanakh that we know of today.
So, in sum: the Jews themselves were only starting to have an idea of a closed Biblical canon when Christianity emerged. The Tanakh itself had only reached its present 24-book, three-part form after decades of consolidation, discussion, decisions, and even opposition, long after Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became separate from one another. It, like the decision of the Christian Biblical canon, was a gradual process, not something that merely popped out of thin air one day.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Except there’s this one little caveat. Our good Pope approved the Canons brought forth by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. He didn’t give his seal of approval to Melito, as far as I understand.
So, Melito, Athanasius, and Tertullian could bring forth all the Canons that they desire, but until the Church approves these Canons, then they are simply opinions.
Boy… I’m away from my computer for 12 measly hours and your guys get really busy!
P
patrick457
Guest
Correct. What people are forgetting here is, these are the guys’ personal opinions. No doubt many Christians back then had their own personal opinions on what should go into the canon and what should be taken out (the canon of the Bible still not being ‘closed’ then, after all); for example, some churches in the eastern half of the Empire preferred having a canon closer to the Jewish one while the western churches favored more books. But when an announcement was finally given out, even St. Jerome (who had doubts over some of the books) bowed to the church’s will.
If I may quote again Jerome’s prologue to Tobit:
Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.
L
littleone
Guest
G
Ginger2
Guest
I have already referenced the info. Can you find a canon from this time period that includes even one deutero book to dispute what I have said?
If these books were not even considered for at least the first two hundred years as Scripture, it stands to reason they were not considered Scripture from the beginning, but were added after much disagreement.
All this (the earliest canons and later disputes concerning the deuteros) has already been referenced.
J
JRKH
Guest
A thought this morning:
It seems to me that the famous quote from Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 also points to the Septuigent as being correct.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
(NKJV)
Lets look at this briefly:
Peace
James
It seems to me that the famous quote from Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 also points to the Septuigent as being correct.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
(NKJV)
Lets look at this briefly:
- Paul Traveled far and wide in his missions.
- He established communities in many Gentile Cities.
- He taught in many synagogues in the Greek speaking world.
- In these places, it would be the Septuagint that was available.
- Paul made this statement Long before the Jewish “council” at Javnah(Sp)
- Paul declares that ALL Scripture is useful.
Peace
James
G
Ginger2
Guest
If that be the case, why reject some Septuagint books? If all the Septuagint is believed divinely inspired, why are some rejected by the Catholic Church?
The Orthodox Church has four more books then the RC. If the Catholic Church always accepted these books from at least the fourth century to present, why did the RC remove four of these books at the council of Trent?
Do you see the problem with using the Catholic argument to defend the deuteros?
A
almeras
Guest
I am jumping in on this without having read every single post, but from what I am aware of, these books were commonplace in the bible until the split when Luther removed them. Luther also wanted to remove James, and Revelations. Many of his followers disagreed with the potentail removal of James and Revelations. Luther gave in because he was facing a split amongst his group that split from the Catholic church.
P
patrick457
Guest
That just proves the diversity* of the historical Christian Church. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church even accepts more books than do the Latins or the Greeks, but why is it that someone still does not question the reason as to why the Greeks nor the Latins do not accept, say, the books of Enoch or Jubilees or 1-3 Meqabyan (which the Ethiopians do accept into the canon of Scriptures).
As for other examples, the Armenian Orthodox Church has a canon that includes the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs or the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians; in fact they only accepted the book of Revelation during the 13th century. Meanwhile, the Coptic Church has a different order for the New Testament and considers the two Epistles of Clement to be inside the canon of the new Testament. The Syriac Church originally used Tatian’s Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels, before the four Gospels were quite forcibly (re-)introduced among the Syrian churches in 423 by a Syriac bishop named Theodoret. The Syriac Peshitta also notably lacks 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (Syriac translations of these books are modern).
Despite these differences however, one defining quality of these churches is that they all include the seven Deuterocanonical books in question (even if some churches do not have certain books that the other does). Most various branches of Protestantism are in fact very much “the odd man out” in not having either one or all said books from their Bibles. Here is a list of the books of the Bible compiled by a 14th century Armenian monk named Gregory (not a Latin Catholic but an Armenian Orthodox); he interestingly includes Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach as inspired Scripture in his list!
- Still another example of this diversity would be the way that the various churches held their liturgy. Different churches developed different ways of celebrating the Eucharist (for example, the Mass of the Latin Church, the Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Church, the Surp Badarak of the Armenians or the Holy Qurbana of the Syrians). The core message is the same, yet the specific practices differ.
G
guanophore
Guest
It has already been referenced also that the councils of Carthage and Hippo accepted the Alexandrian Septuagint, later rejected by the same Jews who rejected Jesus.
The presence of dispute is irrelevant, as there were several books that are currently part of our NT that were hotly disputed for centuries. the Church made an infallible declaration in 382 about all the disputed books, OT, and NT. It is that decree that you now reject, while at the same time, choosing which books you wish to consider inspired by your own tradition.
No, I do not. The Church adopted the Alexandrian canon after the early councils and the practice of the Apostles, who used that one.
G
Ginger2
Guest
The point is the split between the Orthodox and Rome came long after Hippo and Carthage and relatively shortly before Trent. If the canon was already known and accepted by the entire church bythe forth century, and only officially confirmed at Trent, Why are the bibles different?
Did the RC suddenly decide to remove four books. If so then the RC did not know at Hippo or Carthage what was inspired Scripture as has been repeatedly claim here.
P
patrick457
Guest
As I have said in that former post:
- The Eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.
- Thus, the declarations of the local synods of Hippo and Carthage had more influence in the Western churches than in the Eastern ones (one also needs to consider that the synods were made in north Africa, which had ties to the church in Rome). They were local, thus they were not technically infallible. In fact, the catalogue defined by the Synod of Hippo met with dispute, especially from the African Church, which is why it was necessary that the three synods of Carthage in 393, 397, and 419 confirm it. The western churches could have chosen to summon more councils to conform their canon with the modern-day Protestant one. But they didn’t. They were content with it, and the other churches were content with theirs (after all, the difference lies mostly in the fact that other churches had more books; no church lacked the ‘essential’ books, which essentially included the Deuteros).
- Finally, these were the days before technologies such as the telephone and the internet existed; people and communities were most of the time cut off from each other. It’s not like the churches of North Africa or Rome could call all the other churches in the eastern half of the Empire within a matter of seconds about something that a mere regional council had defined.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Thank you. Then all this proclaiming the canon has been set since the 4th century is nonsense and it was until Trent - after the Reformation - the RC decided which books are inspired Scripture.
C
CWBetts
Guest
No. The Canon was proclamed much earlier. All Trent did was reaffirm this to make sure the faithful were not swept up in heresy. And Trent was not “after the reformation” It was during.
P
patrick457
Guest
For the benefit of those who are not in the know, let me try to explain.
Technically, something is usually only formally defined by the Church when someone questions it; for example, the Christian Church only formally defined and reaffirmed the belief that Jesus was God in the council of Nicea when the Arians came in. In earlier ages, this belief was taken for granted among Christians so the Church felt no need in define it formally.
There were no major issues over the Canon of the Bible for centuries. It was all taken for granted until the Reformation kicked in and people started excising off certain books of the Bible. Finally during the Council of Trent, it was felt that there was a need for Latin Catholics to finally define and reaffirm which books are in the Canon of Scripture.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I have no need to reconcile anything to Jerome. He is not my authority. He is merely a respected church father, one of many who felt the deuteros were not inspired. He is mentioned only to support the fact that the deuteros were not always accepted by the church, but later added.
Why keep asking me to defend something I do not support.
The claim is the deuteros were always accepted at least from the 4th century after Hippo and Carthage - but **Jerome didn’t accept them!. **
M
mercygate
Guest
If the seven deuterocanonical books were not “accepted” then nobody would have to create the opinion that they should not be included in the canon.
As Patrick457 points out, until a matter becomes controversial, the Church does not usually make definitive statements on a subject. The canons that pre-dated Jerome included the books you claim were not accepted.
Give it up, Ginger. There is no way to make a case that the Deuterocanonical books were added to the canon at Trent. For Pete’s sake, they even appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which predates Hippo & Carthage by about 50 or 60 years.
P
patrick457
Guest
Jerome did not accept them at first due to the fact that no Hebrew copies of them existed (he was actually a notable exception among the Western Church Fathers; it was actually the Church Fathers in the East who had been more prone to stick closer to the Jewish canon, since they were more closer to Jewish communities than those in the western half of the Roman Empire). But he, along with the bulk of the western Church, did surrender to the will of the bishops in the end (I hope you’ve read Jerome’s prologues I posted earlier?)
Full copies of the Bible which contained all books, did not exist until the Christian canonical lists and codices of the 4th century, so it’s not like the Church of Rome literally ripped out pages from their Bibles. Copies of Biblical books took the form of scrolls or codices which either only contained either one, two or more books but not all, since it would cost more time and money to produce.
It could be safe to say that the Roman Church either never knew of the four books, never having had actual copies of them back then (a more probable scenario IMHO), or had never accepted them from the early days while the others did, which is the reason why they neglected including them.
- Status