Protestant Canon

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You known the one thing that I find interesting about all this is that even at the time of Christ, and prior the Sadducees and the Pharisees were in dispute about what books to hold as scripture. It was not till after the fall of Jerusalem that they settled that matter for them. I believe that the smaller cannon used by protestants cheat them.
Also it is my understanding that the larger Cannon of the Orthodox Was not rejected by Trent just that the one Trent set states that these must be included, not that those could not be included.

 

[stewstew03]

…

Well, if people feel free to do that, they haven’t. Protestants are not adding new revelations to the Bible. The only thing they did was to segregate/remove books that had always been disputed.

…

I disagree that they were “always disputed” for two reasons: (1) the apostles accepted the Septuagint as inspired; and (2) the early church fathers accepted the Septuagint as inspired.

 

[stewstew03]

No ecumenical council ever approved any canon of scripture. And that’s the point. And it isn’t moving the goalpost. It is recognizing a fact of history. Florence is only a council for the Roman Church. The eastern patriarchs did not approve it in the end.

So, where did God have His way? The Greek and Russian canons are different. The Roman canon is different.
Luther had his opinion on what the canon of scripture should look like. So did Jerome, and so did Cajetan, and so did Erasmus. They were all permitted to hold those opinions.

Jon

Council of Hippo - 393 AD

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, **Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . **.” (canon 36).

 

[stewstew03]

It has been a while since I logged in to CAF, and I asked this question a while back, but never quite received a satisfactory response. This question re-surfaced in my mind when the History channel recently broadcast a documentary about Martin Luther and the Reformation.

The question is this: How is it that the “apocrypha” were declared un-inspired? Put another way, how can something declared Holy and the Word of God in the 4th century – and accepted as such by Christians for many centuries – be declared un-Holy in the 16th century? I realize that some doctrines develop over time, such as the Bible’s table of contents – but has there ever been something declared Holy in one era, subsequently declared un-Holy in another era?

In a nutshell, people who disagreed with the apostles and early church fathers decided on their own that the deuterocanonical books were apocryphal.

 

[rfournier103]

Council of Hippo - 393 AD

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, **Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . **.” (canon 36).

Pardon my ignorance, stew, but where may I find documents from the Council of Hippo? I would love to take a look at that!

PS: Love the avatar!

 

[ltwin]

I disagree that they were “always disputed” for two reasons: (1) the apostles accepted the Septuagint as inspired; and (2) the early church fathers accepted the Septuagint as inspired.

Well, they have always been disputed. From Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan to Luther. There has always been some level of uncertainty about their status. Please, read the whole thread where all of this information is already discussed.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well, they have always been disputed. From Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan to Luther. There has always been some level of uncertainty about their status. Please, read the whole thread where all of this information is already discussed.

Except Jerome changed his opinion later on, Luther is a heretic,
and Cajetan is o-ly ONE Cardinal. Books have been disputed,
yes, but they were never officially excluded from the Bible.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well, they have always been disputed. From Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan to Luther. There has always been some level of uncertainty about their status. Please, read the whole thread where all of this information is already discussed.

Except Jerome changed his opinion later on, Luther is a heretic,
and Cajetan is only ONE Cardinal. Books have been disputed,
yes, but they were never officially excluded from the Bible.

 

[stewstew03]

Pardon my ignorance, stew, but where may I find documents from the Council of Hippo? I would love to take a look at that!

PS: Love the avatar!

No problem - here is a good resource to bookmark: ccel.org/

 

[stewstew03]

Well, they have always been disputed. From Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan to Luther. There has always been some level of uncertainty about their status. Please, read the whole thread where all of this information is already discussed.

Itwin, do you agree or disagree with the following statement by JND Kelly:

“For the great majority [of Church Fathers]… the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament…” (Source: Early Christian Doctrines)

Furthermore, if all it takes is minority dissent for you to have doubts about whether a book is inspired, do you also reject Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation? Or do you apply a different standard (i.e., “majority rules”)?

 

[stewstew03]

…
Please, read the whole thread where all of this information is already discussed.

If I have asked uncomfortable questions in response to your posts on this thread, then feel free to bow out!

 

[JonNC]

Council of Hippo - 393 AD

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, **Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . **.” (canon 36).

Hippo was a local synod, not an ecumenical council. That fact doesn’t detract from the support for the Deuterocanon that Hippo, and other local councils and synods provide. But they are not ecumenical councils, and not binding on the whole Church.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Except Jerome changed his opinion later on, Luther is a heretic,
and Cajetan is only ONE Cardinal. Books have been disputed,
yes, but they were never officially excluded from the Bible.

You might want to read what your Church says about Luther. You can be embarrassed or you can be educated. See below:

 

[JonNC]

In a nutshell, people who disagreed with the apostles and early church fathers decided on their own that the deuterocanonical books were apocryphal.

Do you have a document from the Apostles stating that they thought the Deuterocanonical books were canonical?
The deuterocanon has been disputed (not rejected) since the early Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Except Jerome changed his opinion later on, Luther is a heretic,
and Cajetan is o-ly ONE Cardinal. Books have been disputed,
yes, but they were never officially excluded from the Bible.

Jerome deferred his opinion to the Church. That doesn’t necessarily mean he changed he opinion.
Cajetan was only one CARDINAL, who was** permitted to express his view **that the DC’s were not of the canon, though could be considered canon because they were used liturgically.
Luther is not a heretic. The label heretic goes away at the time of death, AFAIK. Luther’s excommunication came well before the publication in 1534 of his translation of the entire Bible, including the DC’s and The Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Do you have a document from the Apostles stating that they thought the Deuterocanonical books were canonical?

Are you saying the apostles did not cite the Septuagint? Or are you saying the apostles did not believe the Septuagint was inspired?

The deuterocanon has been disputed (not rejected) since the early Church.

What about the NT books that were disputed?

 

[JonNC]

Itwin, do you agree or disagree with the following statement by JND Kelly:

“For the great majority [of Church Fathers]… the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament…” (Source: Early Christian Doctrines)

Furthermore, if all it takes is minority dissent for you to have doubts about whether a book is inspired, do you also reject Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation? Or do you apply a different standard (i.e., "majority rules")?

You are mixing two things. Doubts and not necessarily rejections.
From a Lutheran view, yes, we take into consideration the doubts that important men such as Eusebius held regarding the Antilegomena. It isn’t a matter of standard, other than basically these three: attested, disputed, rejected, not unlike Eusebius himself.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You might want to read what your Church says about Luther. You can be embarrassed or you can be educated. See below:

I tried flipping through that, but it’s like 100 pages, so could you give me something
from that on Luther, because the excerpt you provided was talking about Lutherans,
not Luther himself. Your response to my calling Luther a “heretic” has yet to be un-
answered. Oh, and in addition to something on Luther himself from you Adobe File,
something positive between him and Catholics, I would really appreciate a second
citation, from a Catholic source that I can trust, not LutheranWorld.

 

[stewstew03]

You are mixing two things. Doubts and not necessarily rejections.
From a Lutheran view, yes, we take into consideration the doubts that important men such as Eusebius held regarding the Antilegomena. It isn’t a matter of standard, other than basically these three: attested, disputed, rejected, not unlike Eusebius himself.

Jon

I don’t think I’m mixing anything.

From a Catholic view, it seems that if the Early Church Fathers (including Jerome) accepted the deuterocanonical books as inspired, that other Christians would as well. The deuterocanon was attested, sometimes disputed, and ultimately not rejected until Luther.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think I’m mixing anything.

From a Catholic view, it seems that if the Early Church Fathers (including Jerome) accepted the deuterocanonical books as inspired, that other Christians would as well. The deuterocanon was attested, sometimes disputed, and ultimately not rejected until Luther.

The position of Jerome is a mixed one. Luther did not reject them, or if he did, seeing that they were translated and included in his translation seems an odd way to do so.

Jon