F
Farsight001
Guest
Wasn’t there an Old English translation made in the 700’s too?
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
That’s not quite how I understand it.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Kindly explain how you understand it? Peace!
B
Bluegoat
Guest
The earlier councils were local, which means that although they might be accepted by all, they were not necessarily going to be. And in fact we have the East accepting some different books, and then the Protestant reformers look to accept a reduced number. Which isn’t necessarily illegitimate if the councils were just local.
Trent just affirmed that as far as the Catholics were concerned the decisions of the earlier local councils were in effect ecumenical, which would mean that the Protestants were wrong (and I guess the East too?) Of course from the Protestant POV it affirmed that the Catholics were wrong, so I guess it was all very fair really.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Thanks for sharing. Yes there is some truth behind your explanation,but it does go deeper and a lot more complex. True to an extent because certain Orthodoxs have a longer OT canon than both Catholics and Protestants.However,just because certain groups may have rejected the official canon in 397 and 417 A.D. does not equate into being false or undecided. Did the Arians reject the Nicene Creed in 325 and 381 A.D.? Yes. Does it mean the Creed is still questionable and undecided? Accepting or rejecting a doctrine does not change its official position. Jehovah Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity,but does not matter,it is what it is,take it or leave it.The earlier councils were local, which means that although they might be accepted by all, they were not necessarily going to be. And in fact we have the East accepting some different books, and then the Protestant reformers look to accept a reduced number. Which isn’t necessarily illegitimate if the councils were just local.
Trent just affirmed that as far as the Catholics were concerned the decisions of the earlier local councils were in effect ecumenical, which would mean that the Protestants were wrong (and I guess the East too?) Of course from the Protestant POV it affirmed that the Catholics were wrong, so I guess it was all very fair really.
The history of the canon is complicated and there are different versions of that history given by different scholars, regardless of their church affiliation.
I would say that the practice of the Church is the ultimate criterion. What the New Testament writers started the Church Fathers continued. Both groups either quoted from or alluded to the deuterocanonicals from time to time. This seems to have been the majority practice in the early centuries of Christianity even though some questioned the validity of the deuterocanonicals. As time moved on, the Church more and more acknowledged their inspired character by using them as Scripture.
Frankly,whether one wants to have 49,46 or 39 books in the OT is not issue for me. I alone cannot resolve the issue.
Peace and God Bless you.
Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous others during and before his time didn’t seem to think so.
Jon
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
This might be slightly OT, but I’ve always wondered-------
Why was The Book Of Enoch NOT allowed on the Original Selections of Books?
Guess it was too “weird” for Christians to stomach at the time.
Fascinating work regardless.
And it answers the Question reagrding the Mysterious Statement “There were Giants In The Earth In Those Days” from Genesis.
I also have a special Place in My Heart for Enoch and his struggle against the Nephillim.
Why was The Book Of Enoch NOT allowed on the Original Selections of Books?
Guess it was too “weird” for Christians to stomach at the time.
Fascinating work regardless.
And it answers the Question reagrding the Mysterious Statement “There were Giants In The Earth In Those Days” from Genesis.
I also have a special Place in My Heart for Enoch and his struggle against the Nephillim.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Those are Cardinal Cajetan’s words? References please.
William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995)
I read it here:
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#_edn47
If you, or someone else, can qualitatively dispute the quote, I will retract it.
Jon
S
SyCarl
Guest
While this does not cover as many books as Jon’s quote does I provide a link to the full work. It is from Pope Gregory the Great and only deals with 1 Maccabees but it shows that some books were not considered canonical but were good to read.
(An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34)
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html
N
Nicea325
Guest
Thanks Jon,however,William Webster is a well known staunch anti-Roman Catholic.He is an anti-Catholic apologist who,no offense,I take his words with a grain of salt.
That’s fine, Nicea. I feel the same way about Denifle and O’Hare. I only point that quote out to underline the fact that the D-C’s had been in dispute by good Catholics from St. Jerome on until Trent. And this dispute was not resolved for Catholics until Trent. The idea that the canon was set in the early Church is also disputed by the fact that there are varying canons in Orthodoxy also.
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes the DC’s have had their shares of disputes. As I have stated in the past,frankly it makes no difference to me what one wants to believe about the DC’s. We are all free to believe what we choose. I personally believe the early church used the DC’s and the Greek OT,but others may adhere to a 39 OT canon,which is fine with me. I own one NKJV with the 39 OT, several Catholic Bibles with 46 OT and one Orthodox Bible with the 49. I find them all great and useful for studies.
P
pablope
Guest
Question: Did not the Pope (whoever he was at the time) give his approval of the councils’ determinations in 397 and 417? If he did, then does it not make it officially approved?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Councils have prevailed without the Pope’s approval. But local councils are local, unless they are accepted by everyone.
Yes the DC’s have had their shares of disputes. As I have stated in the past,frankly it makes no difference to me what one wants to believe about the DC’s. We are all free to believe what we choose. I personally believe the early church used the DC’s and the Greek OT,but others may adhere to a 39 OT canon,which is fine with me. I own one NKJV with the 39 OT, several Catholic Bibles with 46 OT and one Orthodox Bible with the 49. I find them all great and useful for studies.
I think this is the position Lutherans should take, as well. Well said.
Jon
E
Erich
Guest
As do I. A large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, some NT quotes refer to events that were only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (e.g. Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees 7).
I know that at least some of the deuterocanonicals were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (and, iirc, one of the Gospels as well… either Matthew or Mark).
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes the DC’s have had their shares of disputes. As I have stated in the past,frankly it makes no difference to me what one wants to believe about the DC’s. We are all free to believe what we choose. I personally believe the early church used the DC’s and the Greek OT,but others may adhere to a 39 OT canon,which is fine with me. I own one NKJV with the 39 OT, several Catholic Bibles with 46 OT and one Orthodox Bible with the 49. I find them all great and useful for studies.
Amen brother!
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I’ve heard John Martinogni state this as fact on his show several times, but no excerpts from the Gospels have been found at Qumran.
E
Erich
Guest
Though there are arguments pro and con, both Jose O’Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede assert that fragment 7Q5 (discovered in Qumran Cave 7) is from Mark 6:52-53. If the assertion is true, that would make this the earliest known fragment of the New Testament.
- Status