Orthodox or Catholic canon?

[JamesTheJust]

The beginning of this thread made it seem like there was some wiggle room for Catholics in regards to different Canons. Is this true or isn’t it?

The Orthodox have wiggle room. We, as Catholics, are bound by the closed canon promulgated by Trent.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Catholic Encyclopedia to the rescue again! Here’s a quote from their article on the Apostolic Canons:

“They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scripture (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400. Thereby he approaches the opinion of his scholarly predecessor, Drey, the first among modern writers to study profoundly these ancient canons; he distinguished two editions of them, a shorter one (fifty) about the middle of the fifth century, and a longer one (eighty-five) early in the sixth century. Von Funk admits but one edition. They were certainly current in the Eastern Church in the first quarter of the sixth century, for in about 520 Severus of Antioch quotes canons 21-23 [E. W. Brooks, “Select Letters of Severus of Antioch”, London, 1904 (Syriac text), I, 463-64. For various opinions concerning the date of composition see F. Nau, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1607-8, and the new Fr. tr. of Hefele’s “History of the Councils”, Paris, 1907, 1206-11]. The home of the author seems to be Syria. He makes use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar (can. 26), borrows very largely from a Syrian council (Antioch, 341), and according to Von Funk is identical with the compiler or interpolator of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was certainly a Syrian (Die apostol. Konstitutionen, 204-5).”

Thus, the Canons were not written by the Apostles, they were forgeries. And since II Nicaea only approves the documents of “the Apostles worthy of all praise”, not documents falsely attributed to them, II Nicaea did not promulgate the false Scriptural canon of the 85th Apostolic Canon.

That seems rather unlikely, for at the time, they regarded those canons as being authentic, such that it should be clear that the Apostolic Canons were the intended canons mentioned in canon I of Second Nicaea. And if that somehow is not clear, then one only has to turn to Canon II of Trullo to see that the Apostolic Canons were at that time already considered part of the ecumenical and local canons and those of the Fathers, which comprised canon law. The explicit acceptance of multiple canons of Scripture in the East at Trullo, and implicit acceptance of the same canons at Second Nicaea shows that the Greeks did not view these contradictory canons as being limiting.

That being said, I have no problem with you saying that the canon of Scripture was closed at Trent (for that has little relevance to me), just problems with Mr. Bonocore’s assertion that the canon of scripture was closed at Second Nicaea with its implicit acceptance of the canons of Carthage.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not sure how to address the Apostolic Canons, but I’ll address the 39th Festal Epistle.

When one refers to a doctrine held by the Church Fathers, one is usually speaking of a consensus of patristic doctrine. No single Father was correct on every single point of doctrine, and one would be hard-pressed to find a doctrine on which all the Fathers agree. Thus, we must look upon that upon which the majority of Fathers agree as sound patristic doctrine.

We must conclude, then, that the Council means to approve the canon which was approved by a majority of Fathers, which, after Carthage, Hippo, and Rome, is the 73-book, Catholic canon.

The problem with this though, is that St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle is considered part of the canons for us, because Trullo specifically mentions the Canons of St. Athanasius as being added to canon law, along with the Apostolic Canons and the Canons of Carthage. My only contention is that the Greeks did not have a problem with varying canons of scripture. I do not wish to question your fidelity to Trent or your interpretation of Trent as having closed the canon of Scripture with respect to your own Church.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That seems rather unlikely, for at the time, they regarded those canons as being authentic, such that it should be clear that the Apostolic Canons were the intended canons mentioned in canon I of Second Nicaea. And if that somehow is not clear, then one only has to turn to Canon II of Trullo to see that the Apostolic Canons were at that time already considered part of the ecumenical and local canons and those of the Fathers, which comprised canon law. The explicit acceptance of multiple canons of Scripture in the East at Trullo, and implicit acceptance of the same canons at Second Nicaea shows that the Greeks did not view these contradictory canons as being limiting.

Ah, but the Canons do not say that the Apostolic Canons are binding, only that the documents written by the Apostles are. Since the Apostolic Canons were forgeries, this statement does not apply to them.

Is Trullo considered an Ecumenical Council in Eastern Orthodoxy? If not, I don’t see why it’s relevant.

 

[Nine_Two]

I was not aware that many Westerners have confused the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. That would be like someone confusing a Catholic for a Protestant!

The ability to distinguish between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox is the exception rather than the rule.

Although in historically Orthodox countries it does go the other way, people don’t bother to distinguish between the various forms of Western Christianity. Although I’ve gotten the impression that this is done out of laziness, whereas Westerners don’t distinguish out of ignorance. I’m not sure which of those reasons is worse.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ah, but the Canons do not say that the Apostolic Canons are binding, only that the documents written by the Apostles are. Since the Apostolic Canons were forgeries, this statement does not apply to them.

Is Trullo considered an Ecumenical Council in Eastern Orthodoxy? If not, I don’t see why it’s relevant.

That is a very legalistic way to look at it, which we don’t do. Canons aren’t ignored on technicalities.

And yes, Trullo is considered Ecumenical.

 

[JamesTheJust]

And yes, Trullo is considered Ecumenical.

Then it appears we’ve hit a dead end.

 

[dzheremi]

I was not aware that many Westerners have confused the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. That would be like someone confusing a Catholic for a Protestant!

Really?

I’ve read a lot of…erm…interesting opinions from non-OO about the OO, but this is a first. Hmm. I take it we’re the Protestants in this analogy?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Really?

I’ve read a lot of…erm…interesting opinions from non-OO about the OO, but this is a first. Hmm. I take it we’re the Protestants in this analogy?

I was simply making the point that it is severely ignorant to confuse the OO and EO. That’s all.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And I refer you to this article on the canon over at Fish Eaters (one of the most trusted and respected Catholic websites), found here:
fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

Quote:
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the “Reformers” decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.

You probably shouldn’t be relying on that site. Luther didn’t remove these books from the canon (and incidentally, also included the Prayer of Manassah). You can take a look at his 1534 translation to verify. Also, the so-called “Council of Jamnia” is a fiction invented in the 19th century–hundreds of years after the Reformers. There are plenty of threads here on this topic or you can read about it on Wikipedia.

 

[JamesTheJust]

You probably shouldn’t be relying on that site. Luther didn’t remove these books from the canon (and incidentally, also included the Prayer of Manassah). You can take a look at his 1534 translation to verify. Also, the so-called “Council of Jamnia” is a fiction invented in the 19th century–hundreds of years after the Reformers. There are plenty of threads here on this topic or you can read about it on Wikipedia.

I know that Jamnia was fiction, and the author does too, but the article was a response to those who refuse to disbelieve in its historicity. Fish Eaters is one of the best Catholic sites out there.

Luther did technically include the deuterocanonicals in his translation, but he delegated them to a lower canonical status, and it is clear from his works that he considered them uninspired.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I know that Jamnia was fiction, and the author does too, but the article was a response to those who refuse to disbelieve in its historicity. Fish Eaters is one of the best Catholic sites out there.

Luther did technically include the deuterocanonicals in his translation, but he delegated them to a lower canonical status, and it is clear from his works that he considered them uninspired.

It’s pretty clear that the authors of the Fish Eaters site believe that Pharisaic Jews met a Jamnia to rule on the biblical canon—a purported “event” which is basically a hoax. For example, this statement: “Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel’s Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years”

…has zero evidence to support it. It’s basically made up out of thin air. Even if such a “council” had convened and even if they had made such a decision, it would have carried no weight outside Jamnia, and would have been entirely irrelevant to the majority of Jews at the time, who were not Greek speaking.

Almost everything listed under their heading “Council of Jamnia?” is incorrect information, following a theory developed in the 19th century by a very imaginative but severely misinformed German scholar named Heinrich Graetz.

There are plenty of threads here on this topic.

It’s sad that people would trust and respect such information.

 

[JamesTheJust]

It’s pretty clear that the authors of the Fish Eaters site believe that Pharisaic Jews met a Jamnia to rule on the biblical canon—a purported “event” which is basically a hoax. For example, this statement: “Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel’s Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years”

…has zero evidence to support it. It’s basically made up out of thin air. Even if such a “council” had convened and even if they had made such a decision, it would have carried no weight outside Jamnia, and would have been entirely irrelevant to the majority of Jews at the time, who were not Greek speaking.

Almost everything listed under their heading “Council of Jamnia?” is incorrect information, following a theory developed in the 19th century by a very imaginative but severely misinformed German scholar named Heinrich Graetz.

There are plenty of threads here on this topic.

It’s sad that people would trust and respect such information.

Dave, perhaps you didn’t fully understand or completely read my post. There is a large number of Protestants who refuse to disbelieve in the historicity of Jamnia, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, because they use it to argue against the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. The author is assuming the opponent’s premise and demonstrating how it leads to an illogical conclusion. It’s called an indirect proof.

I could turn your snide ending comment back at you. It’s sad that people would be so ignorant of Logic 101.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave, perhaps you didn’t fully understand or completely read my post. There is a large number of Protestants who refuse to disbelieve in the historicity of Jamnia, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, because they use it to argue against the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. The author is assuming the opponent’s premise and demonstrating how it leads to an illogical conclusion. It’s called an indirect proof.

I could turn your snide ending comment back at you. It’s sad that people would be so ignorant of Logic 101.

I guess I would invite you to look at their site again:

fisheaters.com/septuagint.html The information presented there is entirely made up. The anonymous authors of the fisheaters site describe the “council” and their decisions at length. Nowhere do they disavow the historicity of the “council”.

There are both Evangelicals and Catholics (e.g., Fr. John Hardon, Gary Michuta) who attempt to use the “Council of Jamnia” to advance their arguments on the biblical canon. The point is that there is no evidence that it happened.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I guess I would invite you to look at their site again:

fisheaters.com/septuagint.html The information presented there is entirely made up. The anonymous authors of the fisheaters site describe the “council” and their decisions at length.

There are both Evangelicals and Catholics (e.g., Fr. John Hardon, Gary Michuta) who attempt to use the “Council of Jamnia” to advance their arguments on the biblical canon. The point is that there is no evidence that it happened.

I guess I would invite you to look at this:
m.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-do-an-indirect-proof.html

They do as such because those details were made up by earlier Protestant and Jewish historians (Heinrich Graetz, firstly) to back up the historicity of Jamnia. Again, it’s an indirect proof.

Um, Gary Michuta most certainly does not believe in the historicity of the Council of Jamnia:
handsonapologetics.com/DeuteroQuestions/Was%20There%20A%20Council%20At%20Jamnia.doc

Could you provide some proof that the late Fr. John Hardon did?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I guess I would invite you to look at this:
m.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-do-an-indirect-proof.html

They do as such because those details were made up by earlier Protestant and Jewish historians (Heinrich Graetz, firstly) to back up the historicity of Jamnia. Again, it’s an indirect proof.

Um, Gary Michuta most certainly does not believe in the historicity of the Council of Jamnia:
handsonapologetics.com/DeuteroQuestions/Was%20There%20A%20Council%20At%20Jamnia.doc

Could you provide some proof that the late Fr. John Hardon did?

For Fr. John Hardon, you can refer to his The Catholic Catechism, pages 45-46. For Gary Michuta, you can listen to his CA Interview here. catholic.com/radio/shows/why-catholic-bibles-are-bigger-5560#

At around 7:54, Michuta says that the Council of Jamnia has been “debunked” but then continues on to say that a rabbinical school at Jamnia rejected certain books. He only rejects the label “Council” when in fact the entire notion of the rabbis gathering at Jamina to sort out the contents of the Bible is a complete fiction based on an extremely speculative reading of the Talmud. There’s just no evidence for this, and even if such an event had occurred, it wouldn’t be considered authoritative outside the immediate area.

 

[JamesTheJust]

For Fr. John Hardon, you can refer to his The Catholic Catechism, pages 45-46. For Gary Michuta, you can listen to his CA Interview here. catholic.com/radio/shows/why-catholic-bibles-are-bigger-5560#

At around 7:54, Michuta says that the Council of Jamnia has been “debunked” but then continues on to say that a rabbinical school at Jamnia rejected certain books. He only rejects the label “Council” when in fact the entire notion of the rabbis gathering at Jamina to sort out the contents of the Bible is a complete fiction based on an extremely speculative reading of the Talmud. There’s just no evidence for this, and even if such an event had occurred, it wouldn’t be considered authoritative outside the immediate area.

Alright, I’ll give you Fr. Hardon (though he wrote that book before the Jamnia theory was widely discredited), but Gary Michuta was simply saying that there were Rabbis in Jamnia, which is certainly plausible, and very likely.

 

[Publisher]

Differences between RC and EO canon include 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151.

This is my understanding of the debate (please correct me if I’m wrong):

EO argues that the Septuagint is inspired, as evidenced by the apostles quoting them authoritatively. Thus, all of the books in the Septuagint must be included.

RC argues that only 73 of those books are in the canon because all the early local councils of the Church (including Rome, Carthage, and Hippo) accepted this.

Can anyone give me a good case on which side is correct? It’s important to me because I want to know all the books that God inspired.

The apostles didn’t use the LXX, the LXX was translated FOR the Diaspora …those Jews who lived and settled outside of Palestine and were predominantly Greek speaking…for thiose Jews who had limited or no use of Hebrew as the Diaspora lived within the Greek world…not the Hebrew world. The Diaspora spoke Greek as their primary or only language.

 

[JamesTheJust]

The apostles didn’t use the LXX, the LXX was translated FOR the Diaspora …those Jews who lived and settled outside of Palestine and were predominantly Greek speaking…for thiose Jews who had limited or no use of Hebrew as the Diaspora lived within the Greek world…not the Hebrew world. The Diaspora spoke Greek as their primary or only language.

Um, yeah, they kinda did. The Septuagint was commissioned by Ptolemy II in the 2nd Century BC, and is quoted countless times in the NT.

 

[Publisher]

The Jewish canon was primarily a reaction to distinguish Judaism from Christianity. Prior to 70CE Christianity was considered a Jewish sect that had predominantly Jewish leadership and still worshipped in the synagouges.

Once the “battle” of which “version” of “Judaism” was going to be considered “Jewish” the predominantly Gentile led and Gentile membership of the growing sect of “Christians” established itself as a separate religion naturally used the Greek speaking Diaspora’s version of scriptures… While the predominantly Hebrew speaking Jews used the scriptures used in “Jewish” synagogues and now destroyed Temple, which had been the center of Jewish identity…the “split” between Judaism and Christianity was realized as Christians were now led by Greek speaking Gentiles with a predominantly Gentile membership AND Greek Gentile philosophy…no longer understanding nor care of understanding its Jewish roots.