Who canon the bible?

[jersen05]

when i asked someone who canon the bible and on what authority. they gave me this:

The books in the jewish scriptures (OLD testament) were not all written down at once.It took centuries.Scholars dont know exaclty when all the books of the old testaments were finally collected.Some writings may go back as far as 1300 b.c. but the process of bringing the books together may not have begun until around 400 b.c. the final list of the old testament was made official by rabbis about a.d.100 (also called C.E. for common era).In a.d. 367 church leaders said “yes” to the new testament list of saint athanasius.in 1525 the new testament was first translated from original greek sources into english by william tyndale.Certain traditions partucularly roman catholic and the eastern orthodox churches have additional books that they include in the old testament, called “apocrypha” or “Deuterocanonical”.There intension is it can be seen as expressions of jewish tradition,whether read as sacred or helpful backgrounds documents to the time period leading up to the time of jesus.the protestant translation has 39 books, the catholic has 46 and the orthodox has 40 books.
Some books are not included in our new translation coz its only backgrounds or the history.They are important too but its up to you if it will help you or not.

any comments?

 

[Canto]

** the final list of the old testament was made official by rabbis about a.d.100 **

This was a Jewish council. Some say the council never ever happened. Some say they didn’t discuss the canon, some say they had no authority for all of Judaism, some say there is just no evidence. Either way these rabbis had no authority whatosever over Christians. At the time of Christ there was no Jewish canon. The Sadducces for example only accepted the first 5 books of the Bible.

In a.d. 367 church leaders said “yes” to the new testament list of saint athanasius.

Not really. A 73 book canon was decreed by Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It had the same 27 NT books as St Athanasisus and OT books he included like Baruch, though he was missing some. To my knowledge there was never ever a 66 book canon in the early Church.

in 1525 the new testament was first translated from original greek sources into english by william tyndale.

There were Catholic translations dating back to the 600s though they were probably from the Latin. Out of intrest Tyndale translated choice instead of heresy and Holy Wind instead of Holy Spirit for example from what I’ve read.

Certain traditions partucularly roman catholic and the eastern orthodox churches have additional books that they include in the old testament, called “apocrypha” or “Deuterocanonical”.

The 7 Deuterocanonical books are just as inspired as the other 66 books of the Bible. Some Jews do actually use them.

Some books are not included in our new translation coz its only backgrounds or the history.They are important too but its up to you if it will help you or not.

If a Bible with NT and OT does not have 73 books it is missing parts of the written words of God. It is not for us to decide what should be included or not.

 

[JRKH]

The United, Apostolic, Christian Church, (The Catholic Church) in council and guided by the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of Scripture, both OT and NT in 382. This Identical, canon was reafirmed by at least five more church councils - all before 1500 AD.
Bible Canon Councils Approving

From: catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm
**Council of Rome (382) **
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Hippo (393) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) **
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Carthage (419) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
**Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441) **
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

From: secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/bible.htm
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Thus it can be seen that the Christian Bible canon, containing 73 books remained intact for 1000 years. Certain individuals (such as St Jerome) expressed doubts about some of the books included, but they submitted their own personal judgement to that of the Church in council.
If one accepts that God protects His Holy word, then one must see that God would not permit an errant bible canon to exist for 1000 years without correction.

Finally I would note that the books included in the 73 book canon are from the septuigent, or greek translation of the OT books. This is the “Scriptures” that would have been familiar to the Jews living outside of palistine. It would have been the Septuigent that Paul was refering to when he wrote to Timothy, living and working among Greek speakers, that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (2Tim 3:16)
When Paul wrote this the Jewish canon as espoused by your friend had not yet been defined.

Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[DavidKays]

Hi everyone! I am Greek Orthodox and what I have learned during the years I will put simply in this post. Basically the OT the Church was using was the Septuagint version. The Sepuagint version is the Greek version translated from the Hebrew version. Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew canon into Greek. The Septuagint was called the LXX OT because tradition taught 70 scholars translated the Hebrew into the Greek version and this is what the early Church had in possesion. The NT quotes from the OT were always from the Greek Septuagint(LXX) version. This indicates that the early Church had the Septuagint and refer to this translation only rather than the Hebrew canon. Just to let you know some of the differences between the Hebrew and Greek version, I will mentioned one. In the Hebrew canon the Book of Isaiah 7:14 mentions youing lady while the Greek version is translated " … behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son…" See the difference! The Greek version was completed 300 years before Christ and became the source for the NT writers and also the early Church. When the NT canon was completed then the Bible was now officially completed with the Greek OT version alongside the NT which the Fathers of the ecumenical councils ( both East and West ) have decided were Canon. Some books were hotly debated such as the Book of Revelation. In the end this Book was included as well as the others and that is why we have the NT. You must also remember that even though the 1st Ecumenical Council decided on these issues it was not until the 2nd Ecumenical Council that will confirm the 1st Councils decisions. In fact none of the Councils decisions were accepted as dogma until the next Council from the next generation had accepted them. This always occured so as to make sure it was The Holy Spirit guiding the Fathers and not their own wills. The Church never accepted any decisions from these Councils as dogma until the next Council . Then when the next generation reviewed them and accepted them then they became dogma! God Bless!

 

[BrianH]

**Council of Rome (382) **
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
James

tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

 

[JRKH]

tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

Thanks for the link.

I will allow others comment on it if they wish. I am no “biblical scholar” and I was unable to really understand the article there after a quick review. I am not dismissing it, merely acknowledging my own ignorance.

Peace
James

 

[NotWorthy]

… but the process of bringing the books together may not have begun until around 400 b.c. the final list of the old testament was made official by rabbis about a.d.100 (also called C.E. for common era).

Wrong. The council of Jamnia was brought forth to help figure out what to do with Judaism, now that the Temple was destroyed. They rejected some books of the Old Testament, evidently, such as the Deuerocanons, but we are not 100% sure that they did this. They rejected all the NT writings. **But they did not determine the Canon of the OT. ** This wasn’t done by the Jews until the 15th century (give or take 100 years). And it wasn’t universal. The Ethiopian Jews have the expanded OT that the Catholic Church uses. There may be more books in the Ethiopian canon, but I’m not sure

In a.d. 367 church leaders said “yes” to the new testament list of saint athanasius.in 1525 the new testament was first translated from original greek sources into english by william tyndale.Certain traditions partucularly roman catholic and the eastern orthodox churches have additional books that they include in the old testament, called “apocrypha” or “Deuterocanonical”.There intension is it can be seen as expressions of jewish tradition,whether read as sacred or helpful backgrounds documents to the time period leading up to the time of jesus.the protestant translation has 39 books, the catholic has 46 and the orthodox has 40 books.
Some books are not included in our new translation coz its only backgrounds or the history.They are important too but its up to you if it will help you or not.

any comments?

No. Several Church Fathers, such as Athanasius did come up with what they thought were canonical NT books. But they only held local authority. There were minor differences in different areas of the Church. The Epistle of St. Clement was in some canons, but not others. Revelation was in some canons, but not others. Hebrews and the Shepherd of Hermas were also bandied about according to the area. There were a few more like these examples.

In 390, we see the Synod of Rome (local authority) come up with the Canon (old and new) that we use today. The local Councils of Hippo and Carthage echoed these Canons in the early 400’s. The Pope approved these Canons, with the Deuterocanonicals listed as Scriptures.

This wasn’t Dogmatic, however, until the Council of Trent some 1100 years later. In these centuries between Hippo/Carthage and Trent, the Church held this Canon as Docrine, but again not Dogma. Hence, some individuals were allowed to disagree. St. Jerome was one. There are a handful of others. It wasn’t until Trent that any discussion could be called detrimental.

I hope this helps!

 

[BrianH]

Thanks for the link.

I will allow others comment on it if they wish. I am no “biblical scholar” and I was unable to really understand the article there after a quick review. I am not dismissing it, merely acknowledging my own ignorance.

Peace
James

The historicity of the Council of Rome and the “list” is in question by scholars. It contains a later quote and it does not appear to have scholarly support. Like Jamnia, internet myth is stronger than the facts. Although this thread is taking a reasoned view on Jamnia; which is a nice change.

 

[Canto]

The Council of Rome Canon: the list appears in separate manuscripts and was also reproduced as part of the Gelasian Decree, a decree which was later reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas.

 

[NotWorthy]

The historicity of the Council of Rome and the “list” is in question by scholars. It contains a later quote and it does not appear to have scholarly support. Like Jamnia, internet myth is stronger than the facts. Although this thread is taking a reasoned view on Jamnia; which is a nice change.

You mentioned the synod of rome (circa 390 AD). What about Hippo and Carthage?

 

[BrianH]

You mentioned the synod of rome (circa 390 AD). What about Hippo and Carthage?

Well…the terminology used is interesting about their ratification because it was to be approved by not just the Roman bishop…

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well…the terminology used is interesting about their ratification because it was to be approved by not just the Roman bishop…

That’s great. Start a Papal thread. It’s been at least 3 months since we’ve skied down that hill.

But this is a thread that claims the Church settled on a canon around the 4th century, although She didn’t declare it a Dogma until Trent. This post of yours seems to confirm that Hippo and Carthage settled on the Canon that the Church has used for the past 1600 years.

 

[JRKH]

That’s great. Start a Papal thread. It’s been at least 3 months since we’ve skied down that hill.

But this is a thread that claims the Church settled on a canon around the 4th century, although She didn’t declare it a Dogma until Trent. This post of yours seems to confirm that Hippo and Carthage settled on the Canon that the Church has used for the past 1600 years.

This is an important point. The fact is that the canon of Scripture was passed by several councils intact before the reformation came along.
I still cannot believe that any sensible Christian believer can think that “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, Who Promised to be with and protect The Church and lead it into all truth, would allow an “errant bible” - an “incorrect canon” of “God Breathed Scripture” - to exist for 1000 years without correction.

Peace
James

 

[kepha1]

"…in 1525 the new testament was first translated from original greek sources into english by william tyndale.

Umm… no.
Luther’s Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
And if the vulgate was meant for the people, why was the church so adamantly opposed to it’s translation into the vernacular almost a thousand years later?

The Vulgate WAS the vernacular Bible. One needs to appreciate the historical issue involved. Latin was the official language in Europe for business, religion, higher education, the law, diplomacy, and in many of the royal courts. Anything worth doing was done in the Latin language. Scholarly works were all done in Latin so that student in Europe could read them.

To recommend that the Bible be translated into the vernacular languages would be like someone today wanting to have the Bible translated into Ebonics or Pig-Latin.

This seems strange to us but that is because we live on the other side of the social divide when vernacular language have become respectable. The period of the 16th Century was on the very cusp of the change when it would not have been so clear.

Besides, most often vernacular bibles were written by heretics with anti-Catholic notes and many of the translations actually selected words that tried to misrepresent the Bible’s meaning. For example, Luther added “alone” to Romans 3:28 where it did nto exist in any Greek text. Tyndale chose the word ‘elder’ to translate prebuteros pretending that the Scriptures were referring to a lay minister instead of an ordained one.

One should note that the English language Douay-Rhiems Catholic Bible was completed BEFORE the King James Version and has been proven to have been a source for the KJV translators.

Please remember that the reading of the Latin Vulgate in Latin was never restricted.

gleaned in part from art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

 

[JRKH]

And if the vulgate was meant for the people, why was the church so adamantly opposed to it’s translation into the vernacular almost a thousand years later?

If I recall correctly, at the time of the Latin translation, Greek was still the “high class” language and Latin was the “vulger” language, or the “common mans” language. This is where the term “Vulgate” comes from.

Also - Latin was the language of choice in higher circles right up to recent times. Consider this, Latin is used in scientific circles for the naming of species. So - If Latin is supposed to be this “method” used to keep people from reading the Bible, why is it that every school from the middle ages up to just very recently taught Latin to their pupils. In fact in most Schools Latin was a required subject.

Peace
James

 

[patrick457]

If I recall correctly, at the time of the Latin translation, Greek was still the “high class” language and Latin was the “vulger” language, or the “common mans” language. This is where the term “Vulgate” comes from.

Um, nope. The term comes from the phrase versio vulgata, the “common version” (i.e. ‘commonly’ used within the Church). The Vulgate’s Latin is NOT in the vernacular spoken by commoners - what we call Vulgar Latin. It’s rather in Ecclesiastical Latin: it is a bit akin to Classical Latin but has a simpler syntax and perhaps a bit of Greek and Hebrew influences.

To put it in a modern (English) context, it’s kinda like a Bible which is written, not in the slang one commonly uses in everyday life, but is in a form of written, ‘proper’ English - which however is still simple enough to be understood by the modern reader. Okay, that was a bit off.

 

[JRKH]

Um, nope. The term comes from the phrase versio vulgata, the “common version” (i.e. ‘commonly’ used within the Church). The Vulgate’s Latin is NOT in the vernacular spoken by commoners - what we call Vulgar Latin. It’s rather in Ecclesiastical Latin: it is a bit akin to Classical Latin but has a simpler syntax and perhaps a bit of Greek and Hebrew influences.

To put it in a modern (English) context, it’s kinda like a Bible which is written, not in the slang one commonly uses in everyday life, but is in a form of written, ‘proper’ English - which however is still simple enough to be understood by the modern reader. Okay, that was a bit off.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like I had part of it right anyway.
Lets’ see if I understand better.
Latin was the “common” language and the Bible was tranlated from the Greek and Hebrew into this “common” language but but was written more like a " Proper English" version rather than a “common everyday English” version.
In other words, it was written in a “pure Latin” rather than in any sort of “dialect” Latin.

Does that sound more like it?

Peace
James

 

[inkaneer]

If I recall correctly, at the time of the Latin translation, Greek was still the “high class” language and Latin was the “vulger” language, or the “common mans” language. This is where the term “Vulgate” comes from.

Also - Latin was the language of choice in higher circles right up to recent times. Consider this, Latin is used in scientific circles for the naming of species. So - If Latin is supposed to be this “method” used to keep people from reading the Bible, why is it that every school from the middle ages up to just very recently taught Latin to their pupils. In fact in most Schools Latin was a required subject.

Peace
James

Strange as it may sound but the language of the early Roman Empire was Greek. Greek, thanks to Alexander was the universal language of commerce thus the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek Septuagint. Latin came on the scene as a derivative of the Greek just as the so called “romance languages” [Italian, Spanish, French Portugese, etc.] are derived from Latin. We would probably label it as a dialect initially but over time the differences grew. Latin became common only in the western Empire. The eastern part of the Roman Empire kept the Greek.

Also the codification of the scriptures was prompted by Gnosticism. Due to the abundance of Gnostic writings there existed confusion as to which writings were suitable for use during the Divine Liturgy. We know that even today there is controversy over such Gnostic writings as the gospels of Thomas, Judas Mary Magdalene, the Appocalypse of Peter etc. The canon of the bible was to distinguish which writings were thus suitable for use at Mass and which weren’t. The purpose was liturgical and not to create some sort of self study guide to christianity.