I
Ignatius
Guest
The King James 1611 version of the bible included the deuterocanon as did all bibles up until the 19th century (about 1830).
Also you should be aware the the Hebrew canon rejects all of the New Testament scripture.
The Septuagint and the canon. A question for the East and the West
- Status
Also you should be aware the the Hebrew canon rejects all of the New Testament scripture.
B
Byzman
Guest
I would just like to pose one question here…how do we know that the word “canon,” in reference to the canon of the bible, has the same meaning then as it means to this day? The Church didnt have bibles back then, but rather, they read the scriptures in the liturgy. The point that I am trying to make here is that, there were scriptures that were set in a canon to be read in church, in the Divine Liturgy. So, what I am saying is that, when certain Church Fathers leave out certain books from the Canon, that doesn’t mean anything pertaining to their inspiration, just that there are certain scriptures to be read in the Liturgy. Here is a reference to that idea…ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html Council of Carthage 419 Canon 24
I have yet to see one Church Father doubting their inspiration(Deuterocanonical Books)…and when they say they are not in the Canon nor are they are used for instruction…a couple of Church Fathers have pointed out that this is due to the fact that the Jews do not accept them and they will continue to doubt them…so it would be pointless to use them against the Jews. When they say that they are used for the edification of the people…to me this falls in line with 2 Timothy 3:16 as for the righteousness of the believer.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Well…the Hebrew texts were just “The Hebrew texts.” They didn’t include the Deuterocanonicals in any way, nor did that name exist yet. They had Genesis through the Chronicles, and that was it. (More on that later). This is how they divided it up.
There’s the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings- or, alternatively, the Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuvim (hence the name TaNaKh). Three parts, one canon (though the name “canon” wasn’t invented yet…but in practice, that’s what it looked like). Incidentally, Malachi rounds out the prophets in the middle section, and the last book of the final section is the Chronicles (grouped together in the Tanakh, though the content is identical to what either of us will find in our Bibles).
That little piece of trivia is interesting because it applies to the way in which Jesus describes the span of God’s written word to that point in history. We can gather from Matthew 23 and its parallel passage in Luke 11 that Jesus is identifying “the key of knowledge” given to the Jews. He describes it in this way: “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.”
Abel obviously died in Genesis. And you might be thinking Zacharias would have died in Malachi, but he didn’t. It’s recorded in 2 Chronicles. By some strange coincidence, this is the last book of the Tanakh. I’m guessing Jesus didn’t do that by accident. He was referring to the first and last books of the Word of God as given to the Jews.
Now, you might be thinking Jesus is actually describing the first and last martyrs chronologically. But He’s not. King Joash had Zechariah stoned in the early 8th century BCE, and he was the 13th king of Israel. Urijah was martyred by King Jehoiakim (in the book of Jeremiah) over 150 years later, late in the 7th century BCE. King Jehoiakim was the 18th ruler of Judah. Thus, Urijah was the last martyr chronologically, but Jesus chose to make Zechariah the closer instead. That’s because he’s the one that closed out the Tanakh.
So in the end, we’re looking at a description of the full span of God’s written word to the Jews that, according to Jesus, spans from the book in which Abel was killed to the book in which Zechariah was killed. Genesis to the Chronicles. A span of books that Jesus felt comfortable about mentioning in passing without a great deal of explanation. This, in turn, implies a good deal of widespread familiarity with the way things were ordered in the Hebrew Tanakh- certainly more so than is common now. I think most Christians would have guessed that Joash had Zechariah killed in Malachi rather than 2 Chronicles, but Jesus and His audience clearly knew better.
Oh, and just one more thing: In all the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint, 1 and 2 Chronicles are referred to as 1 and 2 Paraliponenon. And you know where they fall in the order of that lineup? 13th and 14th out of…46ish; it depends on the manuscript. (2 Paraliponenon is actually missing from the Codex Sinaicticus). Anyway, they’re right in the middle. So Jesus clearly wasn’t talking about the Septuagint when He was describing the span of “the key of knowledge” as given to the Jews.
There’s several other reasons to suppose that Jesus and His contemporaries were quite familiar with the way things were done with the Hebrew Old Testament and the specific span of books that were accepted as God-breathed. That’s just one of them.
Back to the anagignoskomena, though. That’s a nice long Greek word that basically means “Things that are read.” These are the books that were not in the Hebrew Bible. And there’s a reason it has a Greek name, you know- they were added in after the creation of the Septuagint. They don’t have anything to do with the Tanakh.
Once they were introduced into the Septuagint, they weren’t cordoned off into their own little section. But they did bear that name- “Things that are read,” or anagignoskomena. This was done in order to differentiate those books from the ones that the Jews- the ones who accepted these books- had always known to be “God-breathed.”
The content of the Jewish Canon is identical to that of the Protestant Old Testament. The order of the books differ, and so does the number of them. But the only reason the number of books differs is because they’re grouped differently in the Tanakh. 1 and 2 Samuel are just one book, so are the Chronicles and the Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah go together, the 12 Minor Prophets all go together, and so do Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther- known as “The Five Scrolls,” or the “Hamesh Megilloth.” Overall, the content of the Tanakh is identical to what Protestants have in the Old Testament.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
And they were labeled “Apocrypha.” Really, just how little do you think I know?
Are you aware that the Septuagint does not contain anything from the New Testament, either? Hey, let’s talk about red herrings.
Nah, let’s not and say we did. Hey, why don’t we talk about the reasons behind the picking and choosing among the books of the anagignoskomena? It’s really not that hard to take the whole thing down. The EOC managed to do it.
Can I make that point one more time? The Catholic Church did some picking and choosing among the books contained within the anagignoskomena. The Eastern Orthodox Church managed to get the whole thing into their canon. This leads me to the conclusion that the Catholic Church had the whole thing available to them but chose to use only part of it.
So what gives? That’s what this thread is all about.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Origen, Athanasius, Jerome. For the sake of clarity, they did not believe these books were inspired by God.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
All about the canon, all through history, and it’s all coming to you straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia. You’ll find quite a few people who doubted the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. You’ll get some pejorative commentary all along the way giving you ample reason to doubt that any of them knew what the heck they were talking about on any occasion where they happened to think something other than what you are currently told to think, but it’s all there. Those three guys are all in the section covering the canon in the fourth and first half of the fifth century. I’m sure you’ll find more like them if you take a broader look around.
Three for the price of one. And that’s just within a century and a half time span. That’s a good deal, huh?
C
Canto
Guest
Says who? Where was a 24 book OT Canon before Christ? Many DC books were found in Hebrew among the dead sea scrolls.
And what books specifically made up the Law, Writings and Prophets in the time before Christ? What evidence do we have?
Jesus is saying the Jews have the canon?
The Sadducees only accepted the first five books.
And how were they ordered. Where is the evidence of 24 book OT Canon before Christ?
And how do we know at the time of Christ there were 24 books in the OT Canon.
If the Jews got the Canon from God, shouln’t you group them in the same way, or does the order not really matter? Looks like the Catholic Bible minus 7.
If God gave the Jews the OT why not the NT too?
If He did but they didn’t accept the NT how can we be sure they accepted the right OT?
If the Church got the NT right, didn’t she get the OT right too?
Jerome: used the longer form of Daniel, he called Ecclesiasticus/Sirach “scripture” and of Wisdom questioned wether one would “deny the authority” of the book.
Athanasisus included Baruch in his OT Canon.
Origen: considered Maccabees “Holy Scripture.” He calls Judith and Tobit “Scripture”
Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian for example all quote from Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees (I and II) and Daniel ‘additions’ for example in their writings
And yet they were cross referenced to the New Testament.
J
jen_fla
Guest
bold emphasis mine. yes, that is what i was going to say. some books are considered inspired and not necessarily meant to be read during Mass. i don’t know off the top of my head if maccabees 3 & 4 was considered inspired or just venerated as a book for Christians to respect, but it was not accepted for use during Mass.
the Shepherd of Hermas is another example. it is considered inspired, yet for some reason, didn’t meet the criteria to be read during Mass. perhaps our Orthodox friends can help, but i think while they have more books they are “rated,” (sorry that sounds horrible, can’t think of a better word) the same as ours.
correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t think you’ll ever hear maccabees 3 being read during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, so we are still on the exact same page in terms of inspired, not inspired, what should be respected and what should and should not be read during Mass.
it’s a shame that we know so many protestants that love Holy Scripture with all their heart, and yet they do not know they are missing out on so much more.
sorry if that rambles. i’m still on wacky cold medicine. :whacky:
peace.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
Tell you what, threadjacker. Answer my question and then I’ll answer all yours. Okay?
Why’d the Catholic Church get rid of certain parts of the anagignoskomena while the EOC held on to them?
Put more simply, why doesn’t the Catholic Bible have as many books as the Orthodox one?
Answer that question and I’ll get back to you.
B
Byzman
Guest
No where in their writings will they deny their inspiration of these books…in fact when they write from them. They themselves use the term “Scripture says…”
Maybe you didn’t read the whole thing on the Catholic Encyclopedia but in regards to Athanasius(and Origen for that matter) it says,
Now on to Jerome, who never explicity denied inspiration(which the Catholic Encyclopedia does state he doubted…I give you that one), the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
This shows that he only was using his personal judgment and he conceded to the Church’s Tradition, which is way bigger than Saint Jerome himself.
J
JRKH
Guest
Could it be that, before the advent of “bible only” theology the view of the Bible and the Bible canon was somewhat different than today?
Could it be that the Bible canon of 73 books which was put together at the ned of the 4th Century and approved as authoritative by for the Eastern Churche s at Nicea in 787, was not considered the “be all and end all” basis for doctrine? After all, the Bible canon was not “officially closed” until Trent and the only reason it was closed there, was to prevent confusion among the faithful.
The early Church relied on a combination of written OT and NT texts, the writings of Early Church fathers and Oral tradition and “pious beliefs” for the development of the faith.
The early councils wished to establish a unified canon for use in liturgy without negating the other sources listed above (collectively known as sacred tradition).
The Unified Church, at teh end of the 4th century determined the 73 book canon for liturgical use. The Eastern Churches evidently accepted this at Nicea while also retaining additional books in their tradition. This was evidently not seen as doctrinally problematic by the universal Church. Later, when the East West Split occurred the two churches lost the opportunity to resolve any potential problems between the two canons.
When the Protestant Reformation occurred in the west, and the canon was being changed, not by church council, but by individual initiative and disobedience, the Church in Rome felt compelled to clarify the canon and thus at Trent reapproved and closed the canon of Scripture at 73 books. Not for the purpose of “rejecting” the other books in the way that protestants think of rejecting extrabiblical texts, but rather to prevent confusion among the faithful as to what constituted “the bible” to be used in the liturgy by The Church at a time when any spurious editions of the bible were being passed around.
This may not answer your question, and much of what I have written is “off the top of my head” but perhaps it provides a bit of historical perspective on the development of the canon, and also on how differently we look at the canon today as opposed to centuries ago.
Peace
James
C
Canto
Guest
Why no Maccabees III and IV, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasses, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas etc, etc. To quote the 1582 Douay Old Testament “because they are not received into the Canon of Divine Scriptures by the Catholic Church.”
There was no canon at the time of Christ. There were many writings floating around, some of which were referenced in the NT but are not included in any OT canon. Also, we don’t know what the original Septuagint looked like. Maybe Maccabees IV for example was added later and not part of the original.The Greek Orthodox Study Bible site notes that Maccabees IV is always in an appendix for the Orthodox list.
Ultimately the Church found 73 books to be in accord with the Tradtion handed down to her and canonical.
“You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church… whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”
F
Formosus
Guest
Maybe because the Gospel of Thomas contains heresy and is a gnostic book? As for the other ones many of those are used in the various public worship services of the Byzantine Church. Use in the Liturgy was the standard for Canonicity in the patristic era, so these are canonical books (the ones used liturgically at least).
I fixed your post for you
As others have mentioned, the fact that different Biblical canons existed from Apostolic times shows that there isn’t a consensus of the whole Church on this issue. The Byzantine Churches have one canon, the Orientals (mainly just the Ethiopians) have their own, and the Latins have their own. This does not contradict as the Church has always recognized that there are books (as others have mentioned on this thread) that are considered divinely inspired but not necessarily part of a particular Canon (Shepherd of Hermes, I and II Clement, Letter of Barnabas, et cetera). Why bother arguing that other Apostolic Traditions have it wrong in this case? How can you say that the whole Church has decided upon this issue when only the Latin Church has done so?
C
Canto
Guest
According to David MacDonald
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm
B
Byzman
Guest
Yeah, but those that which are only read, or to be read in the liturgy. That is what was adopted. Again, this is a difference in meaning, from what books are held as sacred or divinely inspired.
F
Formosus
Guest
Well I have dug through both Florence and Nicea II and I see no mention of the canon of scripture. What sessions of Florence and Nicea II discuss these matters? Also aside from going through those councils individually, I dug into Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma and it does not list Florence as having ANY role in determining the Canon of Scripture nor does it mention Nicea II in this regard. It only lists Trent.
J
John_Larocque
Guest
The Prayer of Manasses is part of the Compline services used in the Eastern liturgies. My copy of the RSV “Oxford Study Bible” includes Psalm 151, Maccabees 3/4 and the two Esdras books that are canon in the Russian church. Strangely though, they chopped up Esther just like St. Jerome did, appending them to the book. The NRSV and REB were good enough to feature a fresh Greek translation of the entire Esther, not just the extra parts, thus preserving the original order. The NETS and the Orthodox Study Bible, I think, include everything.
The variants of Tobit are interesting. Most translations prefer a corrected Sinaiticus, but both RSV and the OSB went with Vaticanus/Alexandrinus. (Codex “A” is the basis for the Slavonic LXX used in Moscow)
C
Canto
Guest
The Catholic Enyclopedia notes the Bull of Eugenius IV (Council of Florence). The site below gives a list from session 11 of the council.
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
As for Nicea II it appears that no specific metion of the canon is made, yet references to the divine scripture could imply (
) the acceptance of the canon as per Carthage.
B
Byzman
Guest
Here is the Council of Florence Session 11
The reason for mentioning Nicea II is because it ratified early councils that determined the Canon, or at least, I know that the Council of Trullo did this for sure.
F
Formosus
Guest
Ok I stand corrected concerning Florence, but it merely says “It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.” but does not condemn or say that the Greek or Oriental Canon is incorrect. Only that it must at least accept the following books .
If its not in the text then its not in the text.As for Nicea II it appears that no specific metion of the canon is made, yet references to the divine scripture could imply (
Edit*
My quote of the text came from the EWTN site. Ah so that is why Nicea II is listed. Interesting but it still doesn’t support that the Byzantine Canon (as found in the LXX) is incorrect or not binding as Sacred Scripture on Byzantines (not implying that you are saying this, just clarifying my own position).
B
Byzman
Guest
Yes…as a Byzantine Catholic, I have been to services of the Compline in which this Prayer is recited. This, of course, is only found in the Septuagint, and one has to wonder that it too could be inspired because of it being used throughout Tradition…a criteria for Inspiration.
- Status