SHORTENED: The Catholic Church compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century.

[Cat_Herder]

Actually, canonicity is exactly a system of in or out–a canon is “an authoritative list of books that form Holy Scripture.” When you “compile the Bible” (see OP) you have to decide what to put in it–what’s going to be “on the list.” Liturgical use, while related and influential in forming the list, is a different matter–the works of the Church Fathers are read in Liturgy too, for that matter. Conversely, there a lot of the Bible that is never used liturgically–you’re not going to be hearing readings from Judith or the Song of Songs at Mass. It doesn’t mean that these books are not part of the biblical canon.

And vice versa, which is why there’s no conflict between the Western Catholic and Eastern Catholic “canons.”

But the Orthodox don’t have a different list of sacred books, they have a different set of categories (I do not think that constitutes a difference in theology, btw; the Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree these particular books are sacred but differ in where they are placed).

This will make more sense when you stop trying to break Scripture and Tradition apart from one another, this separation being artificial. Both are the Word of God, and the Liturgy is a reflection of Sacred Tradition, so, for example, the Prayer of Manasseh is, in that sense, considered to be a reflection of the Word of God in the Catholic Church because it is used in the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.

Read more on Vatican II’s teaching on the relationship between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Liturgy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Here I am drawing from the insert used in our RCIA class…who decided which books belonged in the Bible…

"The early Christians had already accepted the list of Old Testament books in the Greek translation – which was the universal language in the world at that time – by as early as the middle of the first century A.D. Note that the spirit of a church, of a community is social, not solitary…

‘The New Testament list came in 393, when bishops gathered in the African city of Hippo and drew up a list of books considered to be inspired. Finally, the Council of Trent in 1546 declared this list to be the authentic collection, or the “canon” of sacred Scripture.’

Also note that as we Catholics, we believe the Sacred Scriptures are indeed inspired by God. But we do not believe that the Spirit of God had power over the human author and forced his hand, word by word. What we look at is context, analysis, the times the person lived in. Just like Christ said, do not call anyone Father but your Father in heaven’…some Protestants think we are contradicting Scripture by calling our priests Father…well then, don’t call your own natural father, ‘Father’…What Christ was referring to is not allowing anyone or anything take the place of God and His dominion.

'About the actual number of books…‘The Protestant Old Testament contains thirty-nine books, whereas the Catholic Old Testament has forty-six…’

‘In the early days of the Church, two versions of the Old Testament were used by the Jewish people. Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which contained the seven books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine used a Hebrew Old Testament that did not contain these seven books.’

‘In the fourth century, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew version of the Old Testament into Latin and translated seven additional Greek Old Testament books into Latin. Jerome combined these books to make the Vulgate, the first complete Latin Bible.’

‘In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers made their own translation of the Bible into the German from the Hebrew, not the Greek, version. So the Protestant Old Testament looks like the Hebrew version, but lacks the seven books contained in the Greek and Catholic Old Testaments.’

‘In recent times, new translations of the Bible have been the result of cooperation between Catholics and Protestants.’

For additional information, ‘No originals of the Bible exist today, in part because they were written on papyrus, parchment, and leather, which disintegrated over time. Also, at times, the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians. Some ancient copies of the Bible that are still in existence are teh Sinaitic Manuscript (4th century A.D.) in the British Museum; the Vatican Manuscript (4th century A.D.) in the Vatican Library; the Alexandrine Manuscript (5th century), in the British Museum; the Dead Sea Scrolls (150 B.C.), which contain fragments of the Old Testament.’

As the Catholic Church has the mark of universality with the intent that Christ came for all men, it would be only reasonable that the Hebrew books in the universal language of Greek were drawn, and followed by the work of St. Jerome who combined both Hebrew translations.

 

[JonNC]

Here I am drawing from the insert used in our RCIA class…who decided which books belonged in the Bible…

"The early Christians had already accepted the list of Old Testament books in the Greek translation – which was the universal language in the world at that time – by as early as the middle of the first century A.D. Note that the spirit of a church, of a community is social, not solitary…

‘The New Testament list came in 393, when bishops gathered in the African city of Hippo and drew up a list of books considered to be inspired. Finally, the Council of Trent in 1546 declared this list to be the authentic collection, or the “canon” of sacred Scripture.’

Also note that as we Catholics, we believe the Sacred Scriptures are indeed inspired by God. But we do not believe that the Spirit of God had power over the human author and forced his hand, word by word. What we look at is context, analysis, the times the person lived in. Just like Christ said, do not call anyone Father but your Father in heaven’…some Protestants think we are contradicting Scripture by calling our priests Father…well then, don’t call your own natural father, ‘Father’…What Christ was referring to is not allowing anyone or anything take the place of God and His dominion.

'About the actual number of books…‘The Protestant Old Testament contains thirty-nine books, whereas the Catholic Old Testament has forty-six…’

‘In the early days of the Church, two versions of the Old Testament were used by the Jewish people. Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which contained the seven books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine used a Hebrew Old Testament that did not contain these seven books.’

‘In the fourth century, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew version of the Old Testament into Latin and translated seven additional Greek Old Testament books into Latin. Jerome combined these books to make the Vulgate, the first complete Latin Bible.’

‘In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers made their own translation of the Bible into the German from the Hebrew, not the Greek, version. So the Protestant Old Testament looks like the Hebrew version, but lacks the seven books contained in the Greek and Catholic Old Testaments.’

‘In recent times, new translations of the Bible have been the result of cooperation between Catholics and Protestants.’

For additional information, ‘No originals of the Bible exist today, in part because they were written on papyrus, parchment, and leather, which disintegrated over time. Also, at times, the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians. Some ancient copies of the Bible that are still in existence are teh Sinaitic Manuscript (4th century A.D.) in the British Museum; the Vatican Manuscript (4th century A.D.) in the Vatican Library; the Alexandrine Manuscript (5th century), in the British Museum; the Dead Sea Scrolls (150 B.C.), which contain fragments of the Old Testament.’

As the Catholic Church has the mark of universality with the intent that Christ came for all men, it would be only reasonable that the Hebrew books in the universal language of Greek were drawn, and followed by the work of St. Jerome who combined both Hebrew translations.

Hi Kathleen,
Thanks for sharing this. I am very much impressed by the objective and honest way your RCIA document handles this. No polemics, just the facts. This is well done!

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Jon,…I was meaning to share the source, but was distracted by the big rain and wind that came in and I had to get going for Mass…

The source is, 'From The Bible, Questions People Ask", a Redemptorist Publication. It is a handout. The other one we received is addressing the differences between how a Catholic relates to Scripture vs a fundamentalist who takes every word literarily…

It was at this same RCIA meeting the other night, that we heard the attending priest refer to Pope Leo X as the very worst…who if he had been removed, Luther would not have gone as far as he did.

Also, on the side here, when people react to the Trent declaration about the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, etc., Fr said all who are baptized are Catholics…but that when people read the words per se, they are reading the words from a literalist/fundamentalist context. Again, all baptized are Catholics, and as he said, this is why we always pray for our separated brethren every Sunday.

RCIA meetings are very open and want everything to be totally open and honest if people are able to do so. We want people to share whatever they feel comfortable with, even if they think it will make us uncomfortable. We don’t and welcome it. The Church is a refuge for sinners.

 

[KathleenGee]

Also, if people want to find out what the Catholic Church teaches, it is best to go to a Catholic public institution and attend either a RCIA class or an adult faith formation class. Many catechists at the public level have a master’s level education or near to it. Here our teachings are explained in completeness and context.

Also, people have to understand the difference between public revelation and private revelation. The Sacred Scriptures the Church has declared to be divinely inspired are those approved by the Council of Trent.

We know that there were many books that were not approved by the Church…there may have been some inspiration, but it was not weighty or broad enough or were rather insignicant for the universal church. These books, such as the Gospel of St. Thomas, were delegated as private revelation.

These included some that were viewed as gnostic and not in the context of the Apostolic faith passed down to us from the Apostles…

 

[pablope]

Actually, there are Byzantine Rite Catholics–so this has everything to do with it–but let’s try a different tack here.

The churches that eventually became what we now refer to as Orthodox Churches have different Bibles (in content) than do Roman Catholics. To illustrate, take a look at the table of contents from an Orthodox Study Bible. In the Orthodox Study Bible you will find books of the Bible that are not included in the Roman Catholic canon–but are part of Orthodox Canon. (You can probably view the table of contents on amazon.com.) These differences among the biblical canons go back to the promulgation of the Septuagint and substantially pre-date the Great Schism. Therefore, to claim that the West, who again has a different canon, received special divine revelation regarding THEIR own particular canon from the Holy Spirit (which I think is the basic premise of the OP) to the expense of the Eastern churches and THEIR canons–who I’m sure will claim equal parts guidance from the Holy Spirit–is somewhat problematic. Alternatively, I suppose you could argue that the Holy Spirit simply lead each church to develop their own unique canon. So my question for the OPer would be: “Which Bible?”

You also might want to take a look at the Decrees of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent.

History question:

Who were the actual attendees in the Councils that codified the Bible Canon? Weren’t there Bishops or their delegates from the Eastern Churches that attended and participated in the Councils?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

History question:

Who were the actual attendees in the Councils that codified the Bible Canon? Weren’t there Bishops or their delegates from the Eastern Churches that attended and participated in the Councils?

I’m not sure, but you ask an interesting question. Usually cited here are the 4th and 5th Century’s Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage (which I think were also actually synods). Typically, synods are meetings of local or territorial bishops rather than a gathering of worldwide bishops, as in an ecumenical council. There is also the Council of Rome, which I believe is also fourth century. A few Internet references refer to the Council of Rome as “local”, others say that there are no records of the formal proceedings, so I am not sure as to who attended this meeting either. None of these are considered ecumenical councils as far as I know, but it would indeed be interesting to find out who had attended these gatherings.

CCC para. 120 lists the books of the Canon of the Old Testament and references “DS”; a.k.a. “Denzinger” of which I do not own a copy. It would be interesting to see what Denzinger lists as the source for the Canon–Trent? Or one of these earlier synods/councils?

Since the Council of Trent definitively lists the books in the canon, I would say that there must have still been some lingering questions about it (i.e., not about the composition of the canon itself in the West, but whether it had ever been officially declared as such by a council of the church). Of course this was long after the split between East and West.