Which Bible Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CopticChristian

Guest
Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic have different Canons. Trent stated the Catholic Canon. All accept the Septuagint.

Protestants reject the septuagint and have the smallest canon.

If Trent declared the canon as we know it and the canon of the Oriental and Orthodox differ not by less but by more how is that reconciled with Trent?
 
CopticChristian said:
Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic have different Canons. Trent stated the Catholic Canon. All accept the Septuagint.

Protestants reject the septuagint and have the smallest canon.

If Trent declared the canon as we know it and the canon of the Oriental and Orthodox differ not by less but by more how is that reconciled with Trent?
Click to expand...
I have learned to lay off this issue. The issue will not be solved by the lay people,but by church leadership from ALL Christians traditions (Catholic,Orthodox,Protestant,etc). All I do is pray now and leave in God’s hand. :gopray2:
 
We all agree that the canon received is true. What differs is only the canon we have received and the difference was not due to any past rejection but that somehow certain books were not included. Remember that the books of the Bible were more like a collection of scrolls in ancient times. They were not a single bound volume so it is easilt possible for the occasional one to be missed when passing a copy along.

The Protestant problem, however, is that they have over time implicitly rejected those books which are not included in the Masoretic Text. (their rejection was not an instantaneous event but a gradual one - move the greek-only books to an appendix, first. some time later the government refused to continue to subsidize publishing of Bibles that included such an appendix)
 
The wording of the Tridentine decree is vague enough to allow the Eastern Canons to be accepted as well as the Latin one. It is strict against people who reject the books in the western Canon, not really aimed at those who accept more books then the western canon found in the LXX.

Hippo and Carthage were local western synods, so no they didn’t establish the canon for the universal Church. They merely stated the western (Roman) practice on the matter.
 
Formosus said:
The wording of the Tridentine decree is vague enough to allow the Eastern Canons to be accepted as well as the Latin one. It is strict against people who reject the books in the western Canon, not really aimed at those who accept more books then the western canon found in the LXX.

Hippo and Carthage were local western synods, so no they didn’t establish the canon for the universal Church. They merely stated the western (Roman) practice on the matter.
Click to expand...
This is sort of what I was looking for. Provide me the language and where I can read this. Thank you…
 
Scoobyshme said:
Actually, Trent didn’t decide on the canon, it only restated the existing canon, which was decided in the 4th century at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.).

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
Click to expand...
That’s not quite the whole story. Hippo and Carthage were deciding on a local canon; they certainly did not establish canon for the Church Universal. There was never really a universal canon of books in the Church during the first millennium. Honestly, having a universal canon is probably unnecessary.
 
Cavaradossi said:
That’s not quite the whole story. Hippo and Carthage were deciding on a local canon; they certainly did not establish canon for the Church Universal. There was never really a universal canon of books in the Church during the first millennium. Honestly, **having a universal canon is probably unnecessary./**QUOTE]

I am not sure I agree or disagree with this thought.

A Universal Canon is necessary because…

A Universal Canon is unnecessary because…

Is it possible that by not having a Universal Canon then that leaves the door open for the possibility of non-Canonical books or anything else being declared to be Canon?🤷
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Then why is the Orthodox canon(s) bigger? Surely, if Carthage and Hippo were considered general councils they would have the same canon of scripture.

Jon
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that the Orthodox accepted the canon established in the fourth century by the Church.

Partly true. They accepted the original canon established by the Catholic Church, but added to it. And there is more than one canon in the Eastern Orthodox churches. Some use 4 Maccabees, most don’t. Pslam 151 was added, too. It was not in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, but was in the Septuagent version. The older Septuagint manuscripts (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: “This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number”, exothen tou arithmou. Then, there’s 3 Maccabees, which most Eastern Orthodox consider canonical (but not all). The book actually has nothing to do with the Maccabees or their revolt against the Seleucid Empire, as described in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. Instead it tells the story of persecution of the Jews under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 BC), some decades before the Maccabee uprising.
 
Scoobyshme said:
**You’re assuming that the Orthodox accepted the canon established in the fourth century by the Church. **
Partly true. They accepted the original canon established by the Catholic Church, but added to it. And there is more than one canon in the Eastern Orthodox churches. Some use 4 Maccabees, most don’t. Pslam 151 was added, too. It was not in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, but was in the Septuagent version. The older Septuagint manuscripts (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: “This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number”, exothen tou arithmou. Then, there’s 3 Maccabees, which most Eastern Orthodox consider canonical (but not all). The book actually has nothing to do with the Maccabees or their revolt against the Seleucid Empire, as described in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. Instead it tells the story of persecution of the Jews under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 BC), some decades before the Maccabee uprising.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. If, in fact, the canon of Carthage and Hippo was the declared canon of the Church in council, then they would have accepted it, by definition. My point is Hippo and Carthage were not general councils of the Church where canons accepted by the whole Church would have, necessarily, be established. It is Trent, for the CC, which did this.

I will let an Orthodox poster address the question of whether or not they added books.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Exactly my point. If, in fact, the canon of Carthage and Hippo was the declared canon of the Church in council, then they would have accepted it, by definition. My point is Hippo and Carthage were not general councils of the Church where canons accepted by the whole Church would have, necessarily, be established. It is Trent, for the CC, which did this.

I will let an Orthodox poster address the question of whether or not they added books.

Jon
Click to expand...
My friend,

I understand your point and as a Catholic, I too have wondered why the Orthodoxs (maybe not all Orthodox) have a longer OT canon? The only reason I can give is regardless if something was made “official” at any council,whether local or ecumenical,not everyone will abide to it. Perhaps I am wrong? How many rejected the Trinity and other canons from other councils? Now by all means, I NOT saying Orthodox are less Christian or out-of-line with the councils,but it is only one human reason I can provide at the moment. Does it make sense?
 
CopticChristian said:
If Trent declared the canon as we know it and the canon of the Oriental and Orthodox differ not by less but by more how is that reconciled with Trent?
Click to expand...
Can anyone show us where Trent says to exclude books of the bible Orthodox have but Catholics don’t?
 
mark_a said:
Can anyone show us where Trent says to exclude books of the bible Orthodox have but Catholics don’t?
Click to expand...
Formosus said in an earlier Posting…
The wording of the Tridentine decree is vague enough to allow the Eastern Canons to be accepted as well as the Latin one. It is strict against people who reject the books in the western Canon, not really aimed at those who accept more books then the western canon found in the LXX.
Click to expand...
So what I see is that you say Trent does not exclude more books and Formosus says that the language of Trent is vague. I read Trent, maybe I missed it…is there vague language?
 
CopticChristian said:
Formosus said in an earlier Posting…

So what I see is that you say Trent does not exclude more books and Formosus says that the language of Trent is vague. I read Trent, maybe I missed it…is there vague language?
Click to expand...
More than that, is there then an implication that the canon of scripture is vague?

Are there some who believe that Trent intended to close the canon at the minimum 73 (in response to the reformers), but leave open the canon for additional books? Is the CC then saying that it knows for sure about the 73, but not about the others?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
More than that, is there then an implication that the canon of scripture is vague?

Are there some who believe that Trent intended to close the canon at the minimum 73 (in response to the reformers), but leave open the canon for additional books? Is the CC then saying that it knows for sure about the 73, but not about the others?

Jon
Click to expand...
Ok. So there is this belief. How does this belief get substantiated?
 
JonNC said:
Are there some who believe that Trent intended to close the canon at the minimum 73 (in response to the reformers), but leave open the canon for additional books? Is the CC then saying that it knows for sure about the 73, but not about the others?

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon,

I have read, possibly in This Rock, that Trent had no intention of removing texts used by other Apostolic traditions.

That would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
All of those traditions contain the same 66 books we Protestants use. Some have more, I don’t have a problem with that. Perhaps those other books do deserve to be in there? They’re just not as universally accepted is all. I will happily use a Bible from any of the main three Christian traditions, and call it a valid Bible.
 
Izdaari said:
All of those traditions contain the same 66 books we Protestants use. Some have more, I don’t have a problem with that.** Perhaps those other books do deserve to be in there? **They’re just not as universally accepted is all. I will happily use a Bible from any of the main three Christian traditions, and call it a valid Bible.
Click to expand...
Izdaari,

I appreciate your thoughtfullness. Consider that for over 1600 years the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic had more than 66 books.

Consider that because a Bible publishing company the 66 books you speak of are absent the DB. No authority, No Ecclesial body removed them. I ask you to investigate why you find a book with only 66 books as opposed to what others accept exist.
 
CopticChristian said:
Izdaari,

I appreciate your thoughtfullness. Consider that for over 1600 years the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic had more than 66 books.

Consider that because a Bible publishing company the 66 books you speak of are absent the DB. No authority, No Ecclesial body removed them. I ask you to investigate why you find a book with only 66 books as opposed to what others accept exist.
Click to expand...
I don’t say that the 66 book canon is superior, but rather that it’s the minimum on which all Christian traditions agree. Personally, I prefer a Bible that does contain the DB, other things being equal. Your question is one of many on my list to investigate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top