Protestant canon

[SummaScriptura]

The Puritans removed the OT Deuteros from their published Bibles for religious reasons. In the 1800s, the American & British Bible Societies also removed them from their published editions (possibly due to cost?). This is why most American Protestants are completely unfamiliar with the Deuteros.

Most Puritans had them. To be sure they followed the Lutheran tradition of relegating them to "good to read but not inspired" status. Certain Puritans, not all, began removing them in the late 16th century.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I wonder if they think that the Holy Spirit came down and guided them to delete those books.... in the 1800s

No I think the chain of events was probably akin to the following (which by the way highlights a possible explanation for the Athanasius connection):

1. Luther believed Jerome (that great Western innovator) was on to something when Jerome (turning his back on 400 years of tradition) did not have high regard for the disputed books of the Greek Old Testament.
2. Luther thought those disputed books to be "uninspired", though good to read
3. Luther relegated these "good to read, uninspired" books to a separate section
4. Later Protestants rationalized excluding them entirely since there are a lot of books that are good to read but not inspired which do not need printing under the same cover with holy writ.

Correct me it I am wrong, but I believe it was Athanasius who coined the Greek word "anagignoskomena" for these books as "readable things". And I think that is the designation for those books upon which Luther latched. In Luther's view they were "readable but uninspired".

 

[SummaScriptura]

You know who the fisheaters are? Cool!

You silly bird!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Most Puritans had them. To be sure they followed the Lutheran tradition of relegating them to "good to read but not inspired" status. Certain Puritans, not all, began removing them in the late 16th century.

Agreed, I "think" that the ones who emigrated to the US were among the ones who removed them from their copies of the Scriptures.

Kind of OT, but mass printing of religious texts have vastly influenced theological opinion. When I was in seminary, my professor on liturgics often commented on the theological problems within Greek Orthodoxy due to this. As the Eastern Empire was falling, a large number of Greek intelligentsia migrated to Italy. This was part of the catalyst that would spark the Renaissance (I'm very thankful that CF has spell check...) and the renewed interest in Greek which would also lead to the Reformation. However, there was backlash in the East. The printing presses for Greek were only found in Italy. As the Greek absorbed western ideas, these got transmitted BACK to Greece in the way of books, including theological texts. This still causes problems today because these texts influenced later generations into believing that since it was done in the 1600s it was done in the 1300s, which is NOT the case.

In Protestant terms, most Protestants have never even read the Deuteros or even recognize that those books actually influenced their own customs. The Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" by Pastor Rinkhart near the end of the Thirty Years War and put to music by Mendelssohn

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.


is based on Sirach 50:

And now, bless the God of all, who has done wondrous things on earth; Who fosters men's growth from their mother's womb, and fashions them according to his will!
May he grant you joy of heart and may peace abide among you;
May his goodness toward us endure in Israel as long as the heavens are above.

Christos Anesti,
Brian

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Isn't the Protestant canon the one which keeps firing over the bow of Roman Catholicism?
J/K

 

[MrPolo]

Let me clarify once more on Athanasius and these strange notions that
#1 - he is the Protestant's authority on determining their canon
#2 - that he thought the deuterocanonical books were non-Scripture

As I quoted earlier, he considered deuterocanonical books like Wisdom to be Scripture.

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life." (quote from Wisdom 14:12) (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11)​

Additionally, Athanasius' list includes Baruch and excludes Esther, which contradicts the Protestant canon that excludes Baruch and includes Esther.

Thirdly, Athanasius describes the deuterocanon distinct from apocrypha:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles [i.e. Didache], and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. (Athananasius, Letter 39)​

In other words, Athanasius considered these additional deuterocanonical books in a class something other than "canonical" Scripture yet not "apocryphal." In modern times, we are tempted to consider an ancient religious text as either one of two things: either canonical Scripture or apocryphal literature. Yet in Letter 39, Athanasius expressed a third class of writing which he assigned to these Deuterocanonical books.

Take that third class of writing and compare to his quote above from the book of Wisdom which he clearly calls "Scripture." Therefore, Athanasius held to two classes of Scripture---one he describes as "canonical" and one not. So anyway, he considered the deuterocanonal books "Scripture" whether technically "canonical" (like Baruch), or some other class of Scripture (like the others).

For full article, see Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

 

[PaladinValer]

The Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical Books for various reasons, some now proven to be untrue:

1. Not written in Hebrew originally (some are)
2. None quoted or referenced in the NT (some are)
3. A disagreement with Apostolic doctrines and dogmas promulgated traditionally within.

Others do exist.

It should be noted however that "1st generation" Protestants with the exception of the Anabaptists do include what they call the "Apocrypha" in their Bibles and many if not most do include them in their lectionaries. Some even sing hymns or canticles based on them.

Apostolic Christians do believe these books to be canonical due to regional recognition in ecclesiastical council.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Agreed, I "think" that the ones who emigrated to the US were among the ones who removed them from their copies of the Scriptures.

Kind of OT, but mass printing of religious texts have vastly influenced theological opinion. When I was in seminary, my professor on liturgics often commented on the theological problems within Greek Orthodoxy due to this. As the Eastern Empire was falling, a large number of Greek intelligentsia migrated to Italy. This was part of the catalyst that would spark the Renaissance (I'm very thankful that CF has spell check...) and the renewed interest in Greek which would also lead to the Reformation. However, there was backlash in the East. The printing presses for Greek were only found in Italy. As the Greek absorbed western ideas, these got transmitted BACK to Greece in the way of books, including theological texts. This still causes problems today because these texts influenced later generations into believing that since it was done in the 1600s it was done in the 1300s, which is NOT the case.

In Protestant terms, most Protestants have never even read the Deuteros or even recognize that those books actually influenced their own customs. The Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" by Pastor Rinkhart near the end of the Thirty Years War and put to music by Mendelssohn

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.


is based on Sirach 50:

And now, bless the God of all, who has done wondrous things on earth; Who fosters men's growth from their mother's womb, and fashions them according to his will!
May he grant you joy of heart and may peace abide among you;
May his goodness toward us endure in Israel as long as the heavens are above.

Christos Anesti,
Brian

One of my favorite Hymns. I love to sing this one to myself from time to time. I used to sing it in Catholic church, I don't think I've ever sung it in a Protestant one, though.

Nice insight. Thanks.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Let me clarify once more on Athanasius and these strange notions that
#1 - he is the Protestant's authority on determining their canon
#2 - that he thought the deuterocanonical books were non-Scripture

As I quoted earlier, he considered deuterocanonical books like Wisdom to be Scripture.

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life." (quote from Wisdom 14:12) (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11)
​

Additionally, Athanasius' list includes Baruch and excludes Esther, which contradicts the Protestant canon that excludes Baruch and includes Esther.

Thirdly, Athanasius describes the deuterocanon distinct from apocrypha:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles [i.e. Didache], and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. (Athananasius, Letter 39)
​

In other words, Athanasius considered these additional deuterocanonical books in a class something other than "canonical" Scripture yet not "apocryphal." In modern times, we are tempted to consider an ancient religious text as either one of two things: either canonical Scripture or apocryphal literature. Yet in Letter 39, Athanasius expressed a third class of writing which he assigned to these Deuterocanonical books.

Take that third class of writing and compare to his quote above from the book of Wisdom which he clearly calls "Scripture." Therefore, Athanasius held to two classes of Scripture---one he describes as "canonical" and one not. So anyway, he considered the deuterocanonal books "Scripture" whether technically "canonical" (like Baruch), or some other class of Scripture (like the others).

For full article, see Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

The way the early Church fathers dealt with the deuterocanonicals is puzzling at best. I do not have my references handy but an early low-intensity debate existed in which certain Church fathers put forward that the OT canon should be based upon the one in Judaism. What is puzzling is those same Church fathers can also be found teaching from, quoting from and using the attestations for them which are usually reserved for Holy Spirit inspired writings.

This is why for me councils count for nothing, synods count for less, canonical list of books promulgated by Athenasius or anyone else are historically interesting to me and little more. What matters for me is the practical usage of these books in the history of the ancient communions of Orthodoxy. They were used in a fashion parallel with the undisputed books.

Banana Republican: The "Deuterocanon" Is Scripture!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

One of my favorite Hymns. I love to sing this one to myself from time to time. I used to sing it in Catholic church, I don't think I've ever sung it in a Protestant one, though.

Nice insight. Thanks.

Well, Lutherans really aren't all that Protestant.

This hymn is often used as the processional for the Harvest Festival (our thanksgiving) Divine Service (Mass), and in other services of thanksgiving throughout the year.

Hymn starts at about 1:30, Lutheran Gottesdienst (Mass) Consecration in honor of the new Superintendent of Berlin (like a Bishop).
YouTube - Berlin-Mitte: Sendung und Segen - "Nun danket alle Gott"

 

[StThomasMore]

Well, since I do not consider myself a Protestant, I am going to withdraw and just lurk awhile....should be interesting

you are quite the lurky boy today

 

[StThomasMore]

Great, they kill their Messiah, reject His Apostles, some of whom they kill, and we accept their ruling as to what's in our canon! Wonderful!

Considering protestants use the Jamia canon of the Jews for the OT, it would seem yes, they do. The authority of the protestants canon was definitely not the early Church, thats for sure.

 

[StThomasMore]

I wonder if they think that the Holy Spirit came down and guided them to delete those books.... in the 1800s

it seems deletion is common theme among many of these new so called prophets. Mohammad himself pretty much deleted the whole bible.

Its what I call the reform frenzy craze. People thinking that they are the ones who need to correct the so-called mistakes God has let happen. Apparently the Holy Spirit does not guard against error only until after they have been sent. So the Holy Spirit waited for corrected for 1500 years until Luther came. 1800 years for Joseph Smith. 600 years for Mohammad. And 1900 years for the JWs and the SDAs?

Kinda funny how all the above people and groups called themselves reformers of the true religion of God. Yet all of them are so different from each other.

 

[mark46]

The Protestant Canon?

In 1604 King James I authorized translators to provide a translation of Scripture. God himself dictated the English woerds and canon to the translators. The work was completed in 1611, and has been revised several times since, but the canon has not changed.

That's the story I've been told and I'm sticking to it.

 

[The Templar]

The Protestant Canon?

In 1604 King James I authorized translators to provide a translation of Scripture. God himself dictated the English woerds and canon to the translators. The work was completed in 1611, and has been revised several times since, but the canon has not changed.

That's the story I've been told and I'm sticking to it.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but...

The King James 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

It was removed in about 1830.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

As several have pointed out, neither Protestant nor Catholic practice was uniform. But my reading of the history is that the use of the Hebrew canon followed the use of the Hebrew Scriptures. And that was part of the general Reformation approach of going back to the original sources. Just as they saw some Catholic errors as due to using a Latin translation instead of the original Greek NT, they would tend to use the Hebrew OT.

Where do we draw the line here, though? Obviously there was a transition from Hebrew to Greek at least in the 1st century on...so why should non hebrew books written before 1st century be excluded, if they were accepted by the early Christians?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Interestingly, most Catholics, including the good Catholics at catholic.org are blissfully unaware of the existence of the deuterocanonical books and most Catholics are unaware that the Bible is divided into books.

that is a rather sweeping generalization...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I believe the oldest traditions of the Church regarding the Scriptures preserves for us a snapshot of the way things were during the Apostolic era.

To put it bluntly, the corporate witness of the communions of Orthodoxy in the world today, I believe, preserves the best picture of what was viewed as inspired Scripture by the churches in the 1st century.

wisdom!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical Books for various reasons, some now proven to be untrue:

1. Not written in Hebrew originally (some are)
2. None quoted or referenced in the NT (some are)
3. A disagreement with Apostolic doctrines and dogmas promulgated traditionally within.

Others do exist.

It should be noted however that "1st generation" Protestants with the exception of the Anabaptists do include what they call the "Apocrypha" in their Bibles and many if not most do include them in their lectionaries. Some even sing hymns or canticles based on them.

Apostolic Christians do believe these books to be canonical due to regional recognition in ecclesiastical council.

Thanks for your witness here regarding Apostolic Churches from an Anglican perspective!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but...

The King James 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

It was removed in about 1830.

I don't think he is denying this...