OT Canon: Decided when, where, and by whom?

[Corpus_Cristi]

I’m a college student and participate in the Bible study facilitated by a campus church that some of my friends attend. Formally, they are linked to the Assemblies of God, but much like any Protestant Church, they pretty much have their own school of thought. I’ve been participating in this Bible study to brush up on not only my scripture reading (I’m also privately reading Acts), but also to learn more about what other Protestants think in opposition to Catholics since my experience of Protestantism is limited to what I grew up with.

Anyway, one comment that was made last night was in regard to the ‘NT canon’. Now, I know that when the Church canonized scripture, it was canonized as a whole, not as separate parts since all of it reflects God’s words to use throughout history (also the whole deal about the New being conceiled in the Old and the Old being revealed in the New). I then proceeded to ask why the “pastor” made this distinction and he said he did this because he’s making a distinction between the already canonized OT and the newly (as in part of the ‘new covenant’) canonized NT. This confused me because I was never sure whether the Jewish leaders even had the authority to decide on and close scripture the way the Church did. Furthermore, the Sunday before last, my pastor, when giving his homily, made a reference to the canonizing of scripture concerning the Song of Songs (there was a reading from it that Sunday). He said that there was contention as to whether it should be included because the intimacy between husband and bride was so intensely illustrated. This leads me to believe that the Church canonized all scripture, OT and NT and didn’t merely add to the OT, though I’m not sure. Thoughts?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The first Council to name the canon of the Bible was Rome in A.D. 382. However, most Protestant scholars accept the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) as the defining date. The same canon was named at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage III (397) and IV (419). The canon was again named at the Councils of Florence (1431-1435), and Trent (1545-63). The Council of Trent affirmed the canon of the ancient Vulgate, which was based on the decrees of the Council of Rome.

Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were local councils; Florence and Trent were ecumenical councils, with Trent being considered the final, official, definitive decree on the canon.

QUOTE

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (III) 397
The Canon of the Sacred Scripture

Canon 36

[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in church under the name of the Divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are:

Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy,
Josue,
Judges,
Ruth,
four books of Kings = 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings],
Paralipomenon two books = 1 & 2 Chronicles],
Job,
the Psalter of David,
five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach]
twelve Books of the Prophets,
Isaias,
Jeremias [includes Lamentations and Baruch],
Daniel,
Ezechiel,
Tobias,
Judith,
Esther,
two books of Esdras = Ezra and Nehemiah],
two books of the Machabees.

Moreover, of the New Testament:

four books of the Gospels,
the Acts of the Apostles one book,
thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle,
one of the same to the Hebrews,
two of Peter,
three of John,
one of James,
one of Jude,
the Apocalypse of John.
Thus [it was decided] that the church beyond the sea * may be consulted regarding the confirmation of this canon; also, that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated.

END QUOTE

Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, pp. 39-40

[The same list also appears as Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage (AD 419) with the closing sentence modified as follows:]

“Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

---

Pope Damasus I presided at the Council of Rome, and commissioned Jerome to translate a new Latin Bible. As a result, the Vulgate was published in 405 which incorporated the canon of the Council of Rome. The canon was named by Pope Innocent I, also in 405, in a letter to a bishop. As noted above, Pope Boniface was asked to approve the decrees of the Council of Carthage.

BTW, the great St. Augustine presided at Hippo and Carthage.

The canon has never been changed by the Church from when it was first established in A.D. 382 until the present day, and it never will be.

Certain books have been given the designation “deuterocanon” meaning “second canon.” This does not mean that there is now or ever has been two canons, but that these writings were accepted by the universal Catholic Church later than others; .i.e., there was controversy concerning these books that delayed their general acceptance. But all the OT and the NT writings were canonized at the same time, in the same Councils without differentiation. Maccabees is as canonical as Matthew. These are in the Greek Septuagint (abbreviation LXX) but not in the Hebrew scriptures.

The sacred writers of the NT used the Septuagint. 86% of the quotes from the OT that are in the NT are from the LXX.

The Greek Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures, completed shortly before Christ was born. All but two of these writings were originally in Hebrew. The Hebrew texts were later lost and now they exist only in the Greek. Only Wisdom and 2 Maccabees originated in Greek.

The deuterocanonical books are Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Deuterocanon was a name given to these writings in the 16th century when they were attacked by Protestants.

Martin Luther rejected the deuterocanon (which he designated the Apocrypha). That’s another story. But that’s why Catholic Bibles are bigger.

(The NT also has a “deuterocanon.”)

Jim Dandy*

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

All right. Thanks!

 

[Big_Dummy]

You should read F F Bruces’ book on the canonacy of scripture, it is a little more complex then what is being over simplified here in this thread.

 

[Nita]

… I then proceeded to ask why the “pastor” made this distinction and he said he did this because he’s making a distinction between the already canonized OT and the newly (as in part of the ‘new covenant’) canonized NT.

When does he say this OT canonization took place? There was no established OT canon made by the Jews at the time of Jesus and the start of His Church. The Jewish leaders differed as to which writings they considered to be Scripture and binding. (eg. Sadducees accepted only the first 5 books of the Bible).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m a college student and participate in the Bible study facilitated by a campus church that some of my friends attend. Formally, they are linked to the Assemblies of God, but much like any Protestant Church, they pretty much have their own school of thought. I’ve been participating in this Bible study to brush up on not only my scripture reading (I’m also privately reading Acts), but also to learn more about what other Protestants think in opposition to Catholics since my experience of Protestantism is limited to what I grew up with.

Anyway, one comment that was made last night was in regard to the ‘NT canon’. Now, I know that when the Church canonized scripture, it was canonized as a whole, not as separate parts since all of it reflects God’s words to use throughout history (also the whole deal about the New being conceiled in the Old and the Old being revealed in the New). I then proceeded to ask why the “pastor” made this distinction and he said he did this because he’s making a distinction between the already canonized OT and the newly (as in part of the ‘new covenant’) canonized NT. This confused me because I was never sure whether the Jewish leaders even had the authority to decide on and close scripture the way the Church did. Furthermore, the Sunday before last, my pastor, when giving his homily, made a reference to the canonizing of scripture concerning the Song of Songs (there was a reading from it that Sunday). He said that there was contention as to whether it should be included because the intimacy between husband and bride was so intensely illustrated. This leads me to believe that the Church canonized all scripture, OT and NT and didn’t merely add to the OT, though I’m not sure. Thoughts?

At the time of Christ Israel certainly had scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were universally considered to be inspired and authoritative. However, Israel did not have a canon understood as a fixed, closed list of inspired scriptures.

A a well-known contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975):356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358) Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (April 1966):201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)

See also Sundberg’s “The Old Testament of the Early Church.” Harvard Theological Studies 20, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University, 1964.
**A good summary of his work is a short address he gave available on the web and this might be a good place to start.
department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

The best conclusion afforded by the evidence we now possess is that the Jewish canon largely took the shape it now has at the end of the 1st century (90 AD for Pharisaic Judaism), but wasn’t settled definitively and exclusively for all of Judaism until the end of the 2nd century AD.

As mentioned above, when the Christian Church entered the picture there was no defined list of Jewish books. In these days the Church cited Scripture in the Septuagint translation (including most citations in the NT) again suggesting that the larger canon was used in Palestine. The majority of Christian writers at this time cite deuterocanonical works in their discussions in the same manner as the 39 other canonical books. So do many later writers. The lack of a clearly defined Jewish canon early on is reflected in the debates among Christian writers at this time.

What we really have in the 1st century, as Sundberg observed, is two separate communities (Judaism and the Christian Church) defining their canons out of the common body of Jewish sacred writings.

So the issue was disputed and somewhat fluid. Acceptance of the shorter canon was the minority view among the fathers. A reading the fathers as a whole and the history of the Church shows that the trend from early on was toward accepting all the books that are now in the Catholic canon.

No scholarly authority claims that the OT canon for the Christian community was definitively set in the early Church. They note that the larger canon is testified to in the early Church by numerous witnesses, had its dissenters, grew in acceptance, was affirmed at the Council of Florence (1438-45) in 1442 and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-63).

 

[Nita]

At the time of Christ Israel certainly had scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were universally considered to be inspired and authoritative. However, Israel did not have a canon understood as a fixed, closed list of inspired scriptures.

I had always heard the Sadducees accepted only the Law of Moses, the first 5 books, as authoritative. Had not realized this was disputed and that there was another opinion.
In searching around, I came across this earlier thread on CAF.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=572913&page=4
Post #49 by patrick457 is interesting

 

[garysibio]

I’m a college student and participate in the Bible study facilitated by a campus church that some of my friends attend. Formally, they are linked to the Assemblies of God, but much like any Protestant Church, they pretty much have their own school of thought. I’ve been participating in this Bible study to brush up on not only my scripture reading (I’m also privately reading Acts), but also to learn more about what other Protestants think in opposition to Catholics since my experience of Protestantism is limited to what I grew up with.

Anyway, one comment that was made last night was in regard to the ‘NT canon’. Now, I know that when the Church canonized scripture, it was canonized as a whole, not as separate parts since all of it reflects God’s words to use throughout history (also the whole deal about the New being conceiled in the Old and the Old being revealed in the New). I then proceeded to ask why the “pastor” made this distinction and he said he did this because he’s making a distinction between the already canonized OT and the newly (as in part of the ‘new covenant’) canonized NT. This confused me because I was never sure whether the Jewish leaders even had the authority to decide on and close scripture the way the Church did. Furthermore, the Sunday before last, my pastor, when giving his homily, made a reference to the canonizing of scripture concerning the Song of Songs (there was a reading from it that Sunday). He said that there was contention as to whether it should be included because the intimacy between husband and bride was so intensely illustrated. This leads me to believe that the Church canonized all scripture, OT and NT and didn’t merely add to the OT, though I’m not sure. Thoughts?

There was no Jewish Canon. Different Jewish sects had different canons. There were at least five (Pharisees, Saducees, Greek-speaking Jews, Essenes and Samaritans) and possibly more. The pastor is probably under the impression that a Jewish Canon was determined at Jamnia but that is inccorrect.

Also, if the Jews had established a Canon, they would not consider it to be an Old Testament Canon; it would have been the Canon of the Bible. If he considers the Jews authoritative in this matter, he cannot consider the New Testament to be part of the Bible.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I had always heard the Sadducees accepted only the Law of Moses, the first 5 books, as authoritative. Had not realized this was disputed and that there was another opinion.
In searching around, I came across this earlier thread on CAF.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=572913&page=4
Post #49 by patrick457 is interesting

It’s not that the Torah was disputed according to Sundberg: it was fixed as were the Prophets. What he means is that the list of inspired books as a whole was not fixed and closed. That is, at the time of Christ other books could be added to the list of those that were already considered inspired.