Question about the Canon

[Pwrlftr]

Not to detract but is that list accepted as historical fact? I thought that it was not.
Google Damasine List.

Brian,

There appears to be controversy surrounding the Council of Rome and the Damasene (sp?) decree concerning the canon.

It really doesn’t matter though since it is fact that several earlier regional councils (Carthage and Hippo for example) listed the canon and Trent finally put a dogmatic decree on the OT canon. In other words, there is no need to inject a controversial decree into the mix since it gains nothing.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So the Holy Spirit was on vacation during the Council of Laodicea?

No more than the Spirit was on vacation from the hearts of the dissenters at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. But I’ve already said what I’ve said about continuity and ecumenical recognition in the later centuries.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not to detract but is that list accepted as historical fact? I thought that it was not.
Google Damasine List.

In 2008, I researched the claims of those who try to discredit Damasus’ list. I put the results of my research in post #24 in this thread here. If the claims you speak of are the same as I addressed there, then I do not think Damasus’ canon is discredited.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So the Holy Spirit was on vacation during the Council of Laodicea?

I’m not disputing the canon. I just want to know why the Council of Laodicea does not seem to be considered on a par with Carthage and Hippo. So no, your points about continuity are insufficient.

Oh, and one other thing, if paragraph 60 is truly authentic from Laodicea, then it does not claim to be an exhaustive and final list. The books it says are proper to recognize are indeed Scripture. It does not reference other books in the negative. So in that regard, there is technically “no error” in Laodicea’s list, even though Laodicea’s list did not have continuity in the living tradition of the Church. But anyway, I stand by the Church’s discernment of such continuity by the Spirit’s teaching.

 

[BrianH]

In 2008, I researched the claims of those who try to discredit Damasus’ list. I put the results of my research in post #24 in this thread here. If the claims you speak of are the same as I addressed there, then I do not think Damasus’ canon is discredited.

Thanks. I would say that your research is not conclusive. It is possible, maybe probable, but not certain.
On a sad note, RD and I are related and he passed away last month.

 

[inkaneer]

Since it is not an infallible decree, not really. Unless he’s using his charism of infallibility, it’s just his opinion. My question has to do with why the decision of a council is being ignored while the decision of another council is used as evidence to support the Catholic canon. I like consistency.

The Council of Trent was the only General Council to deal with the matter of the canon in a formal manner. The other councils, Rome, Hippo and Carthage were local coucils or synods and lacked the authority to bind the entire church. Florence was only a geneeral council in part and that part did not include the bull to the one Eastern Church regarding the canon. So at Trent the canon was formally defined and while it confirmed the earlier council decisions on the canon still formal definition came only at Trent.

Surprisingly, nowhere is the claim made that the scriptures were inspired by God in the sense that the separated brethren maintain. Rather the scriptures are called sacred but not inspired. This is, I think, a way that our separated brethren attempt to ‘leapfrog’ over the issue of Apostolic Succession and lack of any Oral Tradition, neither of which do they possess. The Bible has always been a liturgical book for Catholics not the self study guide to christianity that the separated brethren have concocted.

 

[simspt]

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

Maybe because the latter two accepted Revelation and the Council of Laodicea omits it:shrug:

 

[simspt]

Since it is not an infallible decree, not really. Unless he’s using his charism of infallibility, it’s just his opinion. My question has to do with why the decision of a council is being ignored while the decision of another council is used as evidence to support the Catholic canon. I like consistency.

I’m interested into delving a little deeper into the history of the development of the biblical canon. A particular question has piqued my interest but I’m not sure there’s an answer to it. I thought I’d try here.

We point to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the church used a canon identical with the canon defined as dogmatic at Trent. However, somewhere around 360 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed an OT canon identical with the Protestant canon with the exception of its inclusion of Baruch, a book which was often treated as an addition to Jeremiah. Neither Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea were ecumenical so they don’t carry the weight of Trent but how do we justify giving more weight to the latter two than the prior one?

I like consistency but from my understanding the only consistency regarding the church’s
long canonization process was inconsistency with the exception of maybe the four Gospels and some of Paul’s writings.

From what I have read the exclusion of Revelation associated with the Council of Laodicea was probably due to the influence of Eusebius and the Syrian tradition. The acceptance of Hebrews in the west with both the Council of Hippo and Carthage both distinguished it from the letters of Paul speaking first of “thirteen letters of the apostle Paul” and then adding “of the same, one to the Hebrews”. Admission of Hebrews in the west had been initiated by Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan and Rufinus of Aquileia who all used it as canonical while regarding it as anonymous. The acceptance did not depend on a persuasion of Pauline authorship. Only later in 418 at the Council of Carthage was Hebrews fully integrated into the Pauline collection and its approval by Jerome who was under eastern influence made sure it would no longer be challenged in the west.

James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John found the least and most hesitating recognition within the ancient church with their status being questionable almost everywhere before the middle of the fourth century. The acceptance of Hebrews in the west and Revelation in the east did not become firm until the late fourth century. The Syrian church even lagged beyond this. As mentioned in other posts this eventual uniformity was fundamentally de facto since no ecumenical authority ever rendered a formal decision for the church at large for the exact contents of Christian Scripture.

I like consistency also but the fact remains the ecclesiastical pronouncements and official decisions brought some writings to full canonical recognition and effectively concluded the discussion about their authority and in doing so the scope of the canon. On a side note the history of book manufacture in the ancient world where Christians initially used the codex (leaf book) vs. the roll (scroll) is very interesting. The codex of the early Christians was quite limited and could hold only a few writings such as the four Gospels and small collections of Paul’s writings. It wasnt until the fourth century codices capable of the whole of Christian Scriptures was available. It probably isnt entirely coincidence the NT became fixed only when codices became large enough include all the NT writings to be transcribed into a single book. This probably contributed to the stability of the canon.Harry Gamble has written some interesting stuff on this.

I agree with R.P.C Hanson and see parallels between the development of doctrine and the canonization process within the church. He describes the development of doctrine as a trial and error process. He states “human thought in every other field of study or endeavour has always proceeded by a process of trial and error, and even though this was a process of considering the consequences and corollaries of revelation, it was still a process of human thought”.

I think the same can be said about the canonization process. Sorry I wish I had a better answer to your question:shrug:

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’ll ask again–would the letter of Pope Innocent I to a bishop listing the books of the Canon be BINDING as teaching of the magisterium or not?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks. I would say that your research is not conclusive. It is possible, maybe probable, but not certain.
On a sad note, RD and I are related and he passed away last month.

Prayers. :harp:

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ll ask again–would the letter of Pope Innocent I to a bishop listing the books of the Canon be BINDING as teaching of the magisterium or not?

It’s not a clear-cut question. Any teaching of any bishop can be called “magisterial.” But I think you mean by binding whether it’s “technically” infallible? Then your criteria for a Pope is listed in Vatican I when he teaches as a function of his Petrine see with the purpose of defining a faith or morals and for the universal Church to hold, and I think 1 other thing. However, from our future perspective of that time, I think it’s fair to say we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the approximate settlement of the canon at the time of Damasus/Hippo/Carthage, and yes, even Innocent in that same generation, so I think your point stands that the canon became binding via the universal magisterium at that time.

 

[jcrichton]

Several people have commented that the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint Canon. It does not. The Septuagint contains books plus a 151st Psalm which the RCC rejects as inspired.

…I’m really bad at research… does not Septaugint mean LXX?

…if you are correct, then newadvent.com has it wrong:

newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

(1) The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

(2) The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

(3) The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

(4) At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint.

…the highlighted statement claims that it does.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

…I’m not much into history, could you expand on that?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[inkaneer]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

It is not that we appeal to Athanasius in an authoritative way. Rather we point out Athanasius’ New Testament canon for its historical significance. Because his canon was the first to have the same books that is in our NT today. That occurred in about 348-350 AD.

 

[simspt]

In a rather ironic way (I say that because I have been on this forum long enough to read a lot of threads), Catholics like to appeal to Athanasius for his NT canon but do not seem to think much of his OT canon?
Not to get off topic

Coming from an Evangelical background I always found it ironic that many Evangelicals use Athanasius’s NT list for support of canonical issues but don’t mention his OT list that includes apocryphal books. If he is authoritative for one why not the other…

 

[fred_conty]

I believe it is easier to understand the canons and aprocrapha by dealing with
the O.T. and the N.T. seperately. It is simply less confusing because names are
thrown around at both when they shouldn’t be.

The New Testament list of books for Catholics and Protestants are the same.
The Old Testament list of books are different and that seems to be the main difference…

Here is an explaination of the O.T.
catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon

The following is a list of the Councils that listed the books of the Bible:

Council of Laodicea c. 360 List of books similar to Trent’s canon.
Council of Rome 382 prompted Pope Damasus I, who listed the books of Trent.
Council of Hippo 393 approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same asTrent)
Council of Carthage 397 approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same as later Trent)
Pope Innocent I gave a list of canonical book which were in Trent.
Council of Nicea 787 confirms the list in the council of Carthage 397.
For an explaination of this see the following site.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.htm

Just a thought.

 

[inkaneer]

I believe it is easier to understand the canons and aprocrapha by dealing with
the O.T. and the N.T. seperately. It is simply less confusing because names are
thrown around at both when they shouldn’t be.

The New Testament list of books for Catholics and Protestants are the same.
The Old Testament list of books are different and that seems to be the main difference…

Here is an explaination of the O.T.
catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon

The following is a list of the Councils that listed the books of the Bible:

Council of Laodicea c. 360 List of books similar to Trent’s canon.
Council of Rome 382 prompted Pope Damasus I, who listed the books of Trent.
Council of Hippo 393 approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same asTrent)
Council of Carthage 397 approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same as later Trent)
Pope Innocent I gave a list of canonical book which were in Trent.
Council of Nicea 787 confirms the list in the council of Carthage 397.
For an explaination of this see the following site.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.htm

Just a thought.

Also, Jerome’s Vulgate, which was also verified by Trent, was the Bible accepted for 1100 years until Luther decided some parts of it did not support his theology so he got rid of them. That is why the protestant bibles are missing seven books from the OT.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Also, Jerome’s Vulgate, which was also verified by Trent, was the Bible accepted for 1100 years until Luther decided some parts of it did not support his theology so he got rid of them. That is why the protestant bibles are missing seven books from the OT.

Remember though that the Vulgate went out with Jerome’s prologues to the deuterocanonical books which placed them outside the pale of sacred scripture.

 

[inkaneer]

Remember though that the Vulgate went out with Jerome’s prologues to the deuterocanonical books which placed them outside the pale of sacred scripture.

Not really. Jerome explained his prologues as not being his opinion but that of those who would object to them. Jerome subjected himself to the decision of the church. Remember Jerome was taught by Jewish rabbi’s whose Jewish canon, at that time, did not match the Septuagint which the church had always accepted. Jerome’s own words were:

"“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 

[fred_conty]

With regard to St. Jerome and his reluctance to translate the Deuterocanonicals,
IMO this just clouds the main issue and points of these books and is of no value.

Consider; is it the point, that a human person said or implied something against these
books? Or is the point that the all the books, including the Deuteros, were in the
Septuagint and accepted by all Christians and included in the Christian bible books
thru history until the 16th century. One man’s OPINION should not make any difference
in view of the counciliar biblical history of the church.

In addition, certainly the church does not abide by Hebrew councils today (no offense intended), so why would the early church have any obligation to abide by them then in 90 AD, when they excluded them?

Just a thought.