Why is the protestant bible shorter?

[ajcstr]

I really object to calling these “councils” because I think it makes them sound like they were somehow equivalents to Ecumenical Councils with bishops of the entire world attending and agreeing on a canon. (You can read about them at Wikipedia. I think the records for some are pretty skimpy, incidentally.) But I DO think the West has has a pretty consistent biblical canon since the 4th century.

I have heard them referred to as synods but I am not sure what the difference is.

My objection is that some posters here assume that because these meetings are referred to as “councils,” this means that all the apostolic churches throughout the world had one and the same biblical canon from the fourth century until Luther came along–and this idea is also used to support ideas of one church and one papal leader until 1056, which is really a distortion.

But I will still stand by the fact that the Bible was unchanged since the Vulgate. If there were no different versions of the Bible since 382, then does it matter? I am also jumping on the bandwagon that the Church was not so much looking at authoring a book as much as it was looking to decide which gospels/letters should be read at Mass. But that’s another issue.

I think that if the issue had been crystal clear prior to Trent, the Council would have simply said, “We affirm what has been stated at Council XYZ that the canon is…” There must have been some question about whether it had ever been officially declared as such. But you’re right–in the WEST, as far as I know, the canon has been stable since the fourth century…

Same comment, now maybe some churches were still reading letters outside of the 382 list. Don’t know.

Thanks again for being such a breath of fresh air here.

I view us all as Christians. Yes, I think the Catholic Church teaches the correct interpretation of the Bible but I believe that Christ desired unity, so I am against all the bickering - as long as its not to the point of trashing the Church as pagan or a cult or in severe error.

If we are all following Christ and trusting in him, the spins and the mud slinging really need to stop.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
The Tanakh was the first canon ever created; in fact, no canon had ever existed before this. If you consider any OT canon besides this, you must first come up with credible reasons to reject the accuracy of the Tanakh.

I was wondering,if you ever plan to answer?

When,where, under whose authority and who decided to “fix” the Tanakh as a canon?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have heard them referred to as synods but I am not sure what the difference is.

A synod is a meeting of bishops from a particular locality or region to discuss issues that pertain to them.

But I will still stand by the fact that the Bible was unchanged since the Vulgate.

Within the Latinate church, I think that’s a very reasonable conclusion.

If there were no different versions of the Bible since 382, then does it matter? I am also jumping on the bandwagon that the Church was not so much looking at authoring a book as much as it was looking to decide which gospels/letters should be read at Mass. But that’s another issue.

I think once the book is invented (no more scrolls) and you want to have a book called “the Bible” then you really have to decide what material you are going to include. I would think the material high on the list of what should be included are those works often read from at the Mass.

I view us all as Christians. Yes, I think the Catholic Church teaches the correct interpretation of the Bible but I believe that Christ desired unity, so I am against all the bickering - as long as its not to the point of trashing the Church as pagan or a cult or in severe error.

If we are all following Christ and trusting in him, the spins and the mud slinging really need to stop.

Thanks, I agree. I think we can learn a lot from each other. But you’re right the spinning of half-truths, mud-slinging and trolling is really over the top.

 

[elvisman]

I think once the book is invented (no more scrolls) and you want to have a book called “the Bible” then you really have to decide what material you are going to include. I would think the material high on the list of what should be included are those works often read from at the Mass.

There were a number books read in early masses that didn’t make the cut, as I stated earlier, including the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Clement.

It was the authority of the Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) that decided the matter.

 

[ajcstr]

I think once the book is invented (no more scrolls) and you want to have a book called “the Bible” then you really have to decide what material you are going to include. I would think the material high on the list of what should be included are those works often read from at the Mass.

And I’ll piggyback off elvisman and point out that the Bible doesn’t include a table of contents. Someone, with the authority to do so, had to make that decision. There was wide disagreement in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I am unaware of any councils/synods after 382 that came up with a different list of books, so I would argue that since we have the same list today, that list had some authority behind it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And I’ll piggyback off elvisman and point out that the Bible doesn’t include a table of contents.

Sure, which explains the variability in the biblical canons.

Someone, with the authority to do so, had to make that decision.

Yes. I’m guessing it was based on the synod model we talked about earlier.

There was wide disagreement in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

“Wide” is maybe a bit strong for me, but OK. There was some variability.

I am unaware of any councils/synods after 382 that came up with a different list of books, so I would argue that since we have the same list today, that list had some authority behind it.

Certainly as it applies to the Latinate church, absolutely. Someone(s) had to make the decision and of course it had to be someone(s) in authority. (I assume by “we” you mean Roman Catholics.)

But the problem with elvisman’s broad statement is that once you start invoking the Holy Spirit in this manner, it creates all kinds of difficult theological questions in trying to account for how or why the other apostolic churches came up with different biblical canons than the one established in the West. Did these other churches NOT have the Holy Spirit then? Did the Holy Spirit only function for a minority of Christian in one part of the world? Or, alternatively, did the Holy Spirit lead the different churches in different directions in terms of their biblical canon? I think in an earlier post we were in agreement that the canons of the other apostolic churches are in all likelihood just as old as the biblical canon in the West. And, like in the West, they have been more or less stable and have persisted until today.

 

[elvisman]

But the problem with elvisman’s broad statement is that once you start invoking the Holy Spirit in this manner, it creates all kinds of difficult theological questions in trying to account for how or why the other apostolic churches came up with different biblical canons than the one established in the West. Did these other churches NOT have the Holy Spirit then? Did the Holy Spirit only function for a minority of Christian in one part of the world? Or, alternatively, did the Holy Spirit lead the different churches in different directions in terms of their biblical canon? I think in an earlier post we were in agreement that the canons of the other apostolic churches are in all likelihood just as old as the biblical canon in the West. And, like in the West, they have been more or less stable and have persisted until today.

It doesn’t create any difficulties - as long as you can understand that the Holy spirit can and DOES work from whichever body or situation he chooses.

For example - and I will simply play Devil’s Advocate here - the Holy Spirit could be working in Protestant communities to slowly reveal the truths of the Catholic Church. In many cases of conversion, the converted will explain that they developed strong Bible study and prayer habits that help them greatly in their newly-found Catholic faith.

**Don’t forget that God can even work from evil sources such as Pharoah and some of the Babylonian characters in the OT to bring about his will. He isn’t bound by anyONE or anyTHING.

During a period of 37 years at the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times. It is the same canon of Scripture that was around during the Reformation and that is still in use today by the Catholic Church. It was during the Reformation and subsequent periods that Christian men had problems with the canon and decided that some of the books were uninspired. As I stated earlier, Luther wanted to remove several books including Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Had it not been for his contemporaries - you Protestants might have a much thinner Bible today than the one you currently have. Calvin and Zwingli did not believe Revelation to be inspired and wanted to remove it as well.

**The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393). At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”. **
There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document. 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon. 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

 

[cooterhein]

Since the completion of the Vulgate, was there ever a Catholic Bible that included a different set of books?

The Greek Septuagint existed before the Latin Vulgate as well as after it.

What do you think Greek-speaking Christians used?

(Greek tradition has always led to the inclusion of more books in the OT than what are in the Catholic canon).

 

[cooterhein]

The above statement is absolutely FALSE! The canon was formally established centuries before;hence precisely why there existed councils such as Hippo. Trent merely re-confirmed what was already established.

These statements seem to be inconsistent with one another.

-The Catholic canon was formally established in the 4th century.
-Greek-speaking Eastern Christians of the Byzantine Empire were in full communion with Rome between the 4th century and the 11th century, and they were in submission to everything that was formally established as “Catholic” during this time.

They don’t seem to be consistent because Eastern Christians did not use the Latinized canon between the 4th century and the 11th century. They used Greek tradition concerning the Greek Septuagint.

If the entirety of the Latin canon had been formally established as the Church canon in the 4th century, why was that canon only used in half of the Roman empire? And why didn’t the Latin half seem to have any problem with that?

 

[cooterhein]

Really? When,where, under whose authority and who decided to “fix” the Tanakh as a canon?

The content of the Tanakh was fixed under Jewish authority, of course. The Torah had already been fixed for millennia, but the Prophets and the Writings were fixed during the period of time between 200 BC and 200 AD. No written records exist concerning a particular council; remember that this pre-dates the most ancient copies of NT manuscripts by several centuries. We do know, however, that the Tanakh had been “fixed” as the Jewish canon by the close of the 3rd century at the very latest. We also know that the Tanakh- the Law, Prophets, and Writings in its present form- was in use during the 1st and 2nd centuries BC, although the Sadducees (now extinct) only accepted the Torah and the Tanakh was not yet formally established as “canon.” You see, the concept of a “canon” had not yet been ideated…and it was the Jews who ideated it, although we don’t have a written record of exactly when and where it happened.

I was wondering,if you ever plan to answer?

Little impatient, are ya?

 

[ajcstr]

“Wide” is maybe a bit strong for me, but OK. There was some variability.

By wide I was implying that there was disagreement among many individual churches.

But the problem with elvisman’s broad statement is that once you start invoking the Holy Spirit in this manner, it creates all kinds of difficult theological questions in trying to account for how or why the other apostolic churches came up with different biblical canons than the one established in the West. Did these other churches NOT have the Holy Spirit then? Did the Holy Spirit only function for a minority of Christian in one part of the world? Or, alternatively, did the Holy Spirit lead the different churches in different directions in terms of their biblical canon? I think in an earlier post we were in agreement that the canons of the other apostolic churches are in all likelihood just as old as the biblical canon in the West. And, like in the West, they have been more or less stable and have persisted until today.

Of course the Catholic response would be that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (which we would define as the Catholic Church). I really don’t have the answer as far as individuals - I have struggled with that myself.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By wide I was implying that there was disagreement among many individual churches.

Oh, OK. If you were thinking then about the variability among all the various apostolic churches, then I would say that there is basically the same amount of disagreement now as it was in 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries (and beyond), since everyone has stuck to their own individual canons that differ from everyone else’s.

Of course the Catholic response would be that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (which we would define as the Catholic Church). I really don’t have the answer as far as individuals - I have struggled with that myself.

So would Catholics believe that these other church bodies (the various Orthodox churches, basically) were then operating outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, since they came to different conclusions regarding the biblical canon (or at least as it relates to the biblical canon)? I guess that’s my basic question–especially at the period of time we are speaking about, circa the 4th century. I’m just trying to understand how Catholics (modern) think about this question.

 

[cooterhein]

So would Catholics believe that these other church bodies (the various Orthodox churches, basically) were then operating outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, since they came to different conclusions regarding the biblical canon (or at least as it relates to the biblical canon)? I guess that’s my basic question–especially at the period of time we are speaking about, circa the 4th century. I’m just trying to understand how Catholics (modern) think about this question.

I think they’d rather not. There’s a tendency to try and present a narrative where today’s RC canon is affirmed by every Christian (at least within the Empire) from the 4th century until the Reformation- even to the point where they’ll claim that the entirety of the RC canon from Trent was formally declared to be the Catholic canon as early as the 4th century. They’d prefer to ignore anything that doesn’t fit with this narrative, largely because this alleged uniformity would hypothetically act as a witness to cooperation with the guiding hand of God whereas the Protestant rebels were defying Him.

That’s what they’re thinking about. They don’t want to think about reasons why that narrative might not be viable.

 

[ajcstr]

I think they’d rather not. There’s a tendency to try and present a narrative where today’s RC canon is affirmed by every Christian (at least within the Empire) from the 4th century until the Reformation- even to the point where they’ll claim that the entirety of the RC canon from Trent was formally declared to be the Catholic canon as early as the 4th century. They’d prefer to ignore anything that doesn’t fit with this narrative, largely because this alleged uniformity would hypothetically act as a witness to cooperation with the guiding hand of God whereas the Protestant rebels were defying Him.

That’s what they’re thinking about. They don’t want to think about reasons why that narrative might not be viable.

Please document a canon that was used by the Latin or Western Church since the 4th century that differed from the one we have now. I will state again, that if none existed then I don’t see what the argument is.

 

[ajcstr]

So would Catholics believe that these other church bodies (the various Orthodox churches, basically) were then operating outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, since they came to different conclusions regarding the biblical canon (or at least as it relates to the biblical canon)? I guess that’s my basic question–especially at the period of time we are speaking about, circa the 4th century. I’m just trying to understand how Catholics (modern) think about this question.

No, I think the premise is that once the Pope settled the issue there was no more disagreement because he had the authority to do so. (and I know you would disagree that the Pope settled the issue before Trent)

Please keep in mind - I am a just a guy in the pew, I have never studied theology or church history formally. I am saying what I believe to be true based on what I have read, but I could be wrong. I’m still learning.

 

[JonNC]

Please document a canon that was used by the Latin or Western Church since the 4th century that differed from the one we have now. I will state again, that if none existed then I don’t see what the argument is.

I believe the Council of Laodicea, 363 AD, had something on the order of 22 OT books, though I think the list is disputed.

That said, here is a link with a side-by side list of the disputed books. Pretty interesting.

bible-researcher.com/canon4.html

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No, I think the premise is that once the Pope settled the issue there was no more disagreement because he had the authority to do so. (and I know you would disagree that the Pope settled the issue before Trent)

Please keep in mind - I am a just a guy in the pew, I have never studied theology or church history formally. I am saying what I believe to be true based on what I have read, but I could be wrong. I’m still learning.

OK, I’ll try my best. One can say, I think with good probability, that the Pope together with the local bishops settled the issue for the Roman Catholic (Western, Latinate, Latin-speaking, whatever you want to call it) Church–perhaps roughly equivalent geographically to the Western half of the Roman Empire. Once the Latin Bible was put together by Jerome, that more or less settled the issue for Latin speakers/readers.

But, by this time (the fourth century) there are Christians spread throughout the world, and the majority of Christian didn’t speak Latin. Some scholars, like Philip Jenkins of Penn State for example (see Lost History of Christianity), believe there were actually more Christian living outside the bounds of the Roman Empire than inside the Roman Empire by say, the sixth century–Christians lived as far east as Persia, India and even China–and also notably in Armenia, where Christianity actually became the state religion even before it did in Rome (301). These Christians outside of the Western half of the Roman Empire have translations of the Bible in languages other than Latin–Greek Bibles and Syriac Bibles, primarily. So, like the Pope and the bishops in the Western Roman Empire, the patriarch and bishops of these other church must too must decide what goes in their Bibles–and when they decide on a biblical canon they reach conclusions that are somewhat different than the Pope and the Roman-area bishops.

So, I’m not sure whether you took a look at this chart that I recommended in an earlier post:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

which show the various canons of the various churches (scroll down).

So then my question is, do (modern) Catholics think that only their own biblical canon was guided by the Holy Spirt and therefore not the biblical canons of the other churches that also existed in the fourth century? If so, then the statement seems to leave the majority of fourth-century Christians that adopt different biblical canons (that still exist to this day), “in the dust.”

I hope that helps.

 

[WCH]

Why is the Protestant bible have missing books.

The Protestant Bible has no missing books.

It is 66 books long, and all 66 are present, and accounted for.

 

[ajcstr]

So, I’m not sure whether you took a look at this chart that I recommended in an earlier post:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

which show the various canons of the various churches (scroll down).

So then my question is, do (modern) Catholics think that only their own biblical canon was guided by the Holy Spirt and therefore not the biblical canons of the other churches that also existed in the fourth century? If so, then the statement seems to leave the majority of fourth-century Christians that adopt different biblical canons (that still exist to this day), “in the dust.”

I hope that helps.

First I would say anything on that list prior to 382 is irrelevant. The council of Rome is is generally regarded by Catholic Apologists(or Hippo in 393) as the fist time the canon Catholics accept today was presented.

Next, from what I have read Jerome was one of the voices against the deuteros, yet HIS OWN TRANSLATION included them (sounds like he submitted to someone else’s authority). He wrote “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”

In answer to your question from a modern Catholic perspective, I would say, is that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. I don’t know what you are trying to get at. Is the opinion of modern Protestants that the Holy Spirit guided whoever decided to finally remove these books from the Bible? What is your opinion to explain any differences either in the 4th century or today?

 

[buffalo]

The Protestant Bible has no missing books.

It is 66 books long, and all 66 are present, and accounted for.

FInd an original copy of the KJ Bible. Count the number of books.