Many Christians thought so. Others did not. But I think you’re missing the bigger picture here. There was never this grand consensus from the time of the Apostles until the Reformation about which books were and were not in the canon. There were other apocryphal (in the sense that both Catholics and Protestants recognize inauthenticity) texts that were thought by some Christians to be canonical.I think this gets closer to my question - and thank you for your responses - were the deuterocanonical books considered by Christians to be “god-breathed” before the Protestant Reformation?
Not necessarily.Do peoples beliefs dictate what is the truth.
How can Christians know Truth if not from either a book or a church or some combination thereof?The amount of people that believe something is not a good basis for establishing the truth of a thing. Correct me if my context is off I just love Gandhi “If you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth”.
Does this mean the canon is not closed? For example, I know Mormons have the Book of Mormon. If there is never consensus, who is to say that their book is invalid?Many Christians thought so. Others did not. But I think you’re missing the bigger picture here. There was never this grand consensus from the time of the Apostles until the Reformation about which books were and were not in the canon. There were other apocryphal (in the sense that both Catholics and Protestants recognize inauthenticity) texts that were thought by some Christians to be canonical.
I didn’t say there never was consensus. Only that it was not as definitive as some make it out to be. By the fourth century, the basic outline of the canon had taken shape. Yet, the Catholic Church did not definitively end debate on the canon until the Council of Trent, which occurred from 1545 to 1563. The Protestant Reformation began in 1517, so by the time the Catholic Church definitively said people couldn’t entertain doubts about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, Protestants were already doing their own thing.Does this mean the canon is not closed? For example, I know Mormons have the Book of Mormon. If there is never consensus, who is to say that their book is invalid?
Is the canon not closed, then? Hypothetically, if Pope Francis determined that a book of the bible (pick one) was not inspired, would their be a cavalier response – as in “well, that is his opinion” – or would there be an enormous backlash?Obviously that is an interpretation and application that protestants don’t see in the same way as the RCC interprets and applies it. The point is that even within the RCC there were many who didn’t agree with what should be in the canon, even or especially, during the time of Luther.
Thank you Itwin.I didn’t say there never was consensus. Only that it was not as definitive as some make it out to be. By the fourth century, the basic outline of the canon had taken shape. Yet, the Catholic Church did not definitively end debate on the canon until the Council of Trent, which occurred from 1545 to 1563. The Protestant Reformation began in 1517, so by the time the Catholic Church definitively said people couldn’t entertain doubts about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, Protestants were already doing their own thing.
But there still is diversity in Christian canons. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has a much longer canon that includes both the deuterocanonicals and more.
What Protestants did was not say that the canon was open. What they said was that the canon needed to be tightened, that those books in which there was continued lingering doubt needed to be segregated and not used as authorities. They were not looking to expand the canon, but they wanted to ensure its authenticity to the highest degree.
Oh, I think there would have been a mighty backlash from all of Christendom. A different hypothetical would be if a new ancient manuscript was discovered that was another from Paul, for example. What would be the process to verify and which groups in Christendom would accept it if any.Is the canon not closed, then? Hypothetically, if Pope Francis determined that a book of the bible (pick one) was not inspired, would their be a cavalier response – as in “well, that is his opinion” – or would there be an enormous backlash?
This is where my protestant bias will obviously color my reply. We believe that the Truth you are seeking is a Person; Jesus. The church’s job is, and I believe always was, to point and uphold Jesus. Paul said he preached Christ and Him crucified. Jesus, and His life, death, and resurrection, in effect is the key, and the Truth. It is our job to share those facts.In viewing this documentary from the history channel (mentioned in my original post) it seems to me that there have been a million “Luthers” since the Reformation. It seems anyone can simply disagree with prevailing doctrine and establish his or her own church, no? And for someone like me – a wanderer who asks questions – the “truth” becomes elusive. Perhaps this is not a problem; perhaps we simply arrive at our own truth and develop our own dogma, as the case may be, and try to persuade others to agree with our dogmatic assertions.
Yes, that is a different hypothetical - but, correct me if I am wrong, it is not analogous to what Luther did in the 16th century.Oh, I think there would have been a mighty backlash from all of Christendom. A different hypothetical would be if a new ancient manuscript was discovered that was another from Paul, for example. What would be the process to verify and which groups in Christendom would accept it if any.
This is where my protestant bias will obviously color my reply. We believe that the Truth you are seeking is a Person; Jesus. The church’s job is, and I believe always was, to point and uphold Jesus. Paul said he preached Christ and Him crucified. Jesus, and His life, death, and resurrection, in effect is the key, and the Truth. It is our job to share those facts.
I think this is interesting point in that it assumes, a priori, that all self-professed Christians will uphold consensus on the identity of Jesus. Are there not different interpretations on the nature of Jesus (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses)? As a skeptic, I would suspend judgement until Christians decide who Jesus is – only then we can sit down for coffee and pie.So, if you and I were sitting down for coffee and pie, and we discussed religion, the first question to ask is; who do you say Jesus is? And, why? That is the most important question to ask and answer. And, then we can move on to other matters. The whole of the OT and the NT point to a Person Who is Truth. That is why “Christian” fits; be it Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant we are all going to say Christ, Christ, Christ.
I don’t mean this flippantly, but you seem to be saying they are inspired but not taken as seriously as the other inspired books…?Just as a side note: deuterocanonial is from two words; deuter meaning secondary and canon meaning rule or rod. So those books are secondary rules and not primary rules of faith to that which we believe. So in a sense they are inspired, yet, because they were written in Greek as I understand it and were in the canon at Alexandria, that the Church included them. However since they were written in Greek the Jewish religious leaders opf the time rejected them on the basis of them being written in Greek and not Hebrew, this is also true of those Bibical books that were written in Aramaic that were rejected by the Jewish religious leaders.
This is helpful, thank you. Were the Deuterocanonical books considered “holy” or “god-inspired” before the Council of Trent?I have a group here devoted to the Deuterocanon and the research on it, so
if you have any further questions after this post, just let me know, and I will
be glad to answer:
Protestants prefer the POST-CHRISTIAN Jewish canon formed by anti-christian Jews of the time like Rabba
Akiva. Saint Jerome who translated the Vulgate disagreed with the Deuterocanon AS he was translating, but
Protestants ignore the fact that he used the Deuterocanon later in life as Canonical Scripture. Some Protes-
tants also insist that that there is no Hebrew copy of the any Deuterocanon-ical book, but Wisdom, Judith,
AND Sirach were found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls, again: In Hebrew. That’s a side-issue, how-
ever, because the Bible never demands that anything in the Old Testament should be found in Hebrew to be
authentic Sacred Writing. Protestants also feel that there’s a bit of witch-craft in Tobit, as though there is no
other strange act through out the Bible that produced miracles. What about the time Jesus spat in dirt and
rubbed it in a man’s eyes to help him see? Yet another weak argument is that the New Testament does not
quote the Apocrypha, which even if was true, is still not a good point. It is not true actually, as it was made
known to me by RPRPsych that there is an interesting parallel between Sirach 24 and the end of John 7. I
also learned of the Book of Tobit being alluded to in Mark 12:18-26, and there are many other valid parallels
ignored. PLUS, even if the “not quoted in the New Testament” was valid and true, that would possibly then
exclude books like the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. ALSO, books like Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses,
& the Ascension of Isaiah are either quoted or alluded to by the Apostles, most notably the Book of Enoch,
quoted WORD for WORD by the Apostle Saint Jude, so the “not quoted in the New Testament” argument
says that the B.o.E., A.o.M., & A.o.I. should be in the Bible. Weak.
Protestants also ignore the Miracle of the Septuagint:
Around the 2nd Century BCE,. King Ptolemy II of Egypt had commissioned seventy-two
Jewish scholars to come up with a Greek. translation of the Jewish Scriptures so as to
be included to the Library of Alexandria. Each Jew translated his own copy, the seventy-
two did not work together on one single manuscript,. and according to the legend, they
each compared their finished products with each other,. and they were ALL THE SAME.
This legend is first seen in the Letter of Aristeas and was
repeated by Philo Judaeus, Flavius Josephus, and even
Saint Augustine.
There is even mention of this
story found in the Babylonian
Talmud:
“King Ptolemy once gathered seventy-two Elders. He placed them in seventy-two(The Septuagint gives us the Catholic Old Testament that Protestants reject).
chambers, …each of them in a separate one, …without revealing to them why they
were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: ‘Write for me the Torah
of Moshe, your teacher’. God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically
as all the others did.”
Protestants make arguments against the Deuterocanon simply for the sake
of “Against the Apocrypha,” without much objectivity, because the idea is to
be different from the Roman Catholic Church.
The the affirmation of the Canon in the Council of Trent was actually a REaf-This is helpful, thank you. Were the Deuterocanonical books considered “holy” or “god-inspired” before the Council of Trent?
True, but when Luther did it there were even those in the RCC that would have agreed with many, if not all, of his opinion on the canon. So, in essence it wasn’t a “SURPISE!!!” It was something discussed within the church as well.Yes, that is a different hypothetical - but, correct me if I am wrong, it is not analogous to what Luther did in the 16th century.
Awww, we have to delay til all self-professed Christians agree on the ID of Jesus? I say it’s always a good time for coffee and pie. In reality though, you can be a self-professed millionaire, but unless you actually have the money, that’s kind of a moot point. In effect if you go to a Lutheran, a RC, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Greek Orthodox, etc… we are all going to agree on who Jesus is. If you go to a Mormon or a JW, they aren’t going to agree.I think this is interesting point in that it assumes, a priori, that all self-professed Christians will uphold consensus on the identity of Jesus. Are there not different interpretations on the nature of Jesus (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses)? As a skeptic, I would suspend judgement until Christians decide who Jesus is – only then we can sit down for coffee and pie.
I MEANT TOBIT!. . . Some Protestants also insist that that there is no Hebrew copy of the
any Deuterocanonical book, but Wisdom, Judith, AND Sirach were found
in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls, again: In Hebrew . . .
Yes, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Still, there appear to be differences with regard to the nature of Jesus. Mormons and JWs consider themselves part of the Christian community, no?True, but when Luther did it there were even those in the RCC that would have agreed with many, if not all, of his opinion on the canon. So, in essence it wasn’t a “SURPISE!!!” It was something discussed within the church as well.
Awww, we have to delay til all self-professed Christians agree on the ID of Jesus? I say it’s always a good time for coffee and pie. In reality though, you can be a self-professed millionaire, but unless you actually have the money, that’s kind of a moot point. In effect if you go to a Lutheran, a RC, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Greek Orthodox, etc… we are all going to agree on who Jesus is. If you go to a Mormon or a JW, they aren’t going to agree.
We all recognize that just because we fight over something, like the nature of the Universe it doesn’t mean the Universe has no nature, nor does it mean an absence of absolute truth.
You continue to appeal to this idea that there were some within the Catholic Church (RCC?) that agreed with Luther. I’m just curious, how is that relevant? (Perhaps it is relevant, but I’m not sure).True, but when Luther did it there were even those in the RCC that would have agreed with many, if not all, of his opinion on the canon. So, in essence it wasn’t a “SURPISE!!!” It was something discussed within the church as well.
…
To my understanding it depends on who you’d ask. Now, if you flip it and ask it the other way, most mainstream Christians would say no.Yes, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Still, there appear to be differences with regard to the nature of Jesus. Mormons and JWs consider themselves part of the Christian community, no?
The relevance that I see as far as this discussion is the contention that the canon was indeed a point of contention (lol) even before the reformation. As someone else mentioned the reformation didn’t happen in a vacuum and there were reasons that theologians of the day (even in the RCC) were questioning the inclusion of certain books.You continue to appeal to this idea that there were some within the Catholic Church (RCC?) that agreed with Luther. I’m just curious, how is that relevant? (Perhaps it is relevant, but I’m not sure).
Do you disagree with Judas Thaddeus then? It seems there was consensus on the canon, though perhaps not without some dissension.The relevance that I see as far as this discussion is the contention that the canon was indeed a point of contention (lol) even before the reformation. As someone else mentioned the reformation didn’t happen in a vacuum and there were reasons that theologians of the day (even in the RCC) were questioning the inclusion of certain books.