Missing pages from one's bible

[disciple Clint]

I think the point he is trying to make which I did as well is that Trent is not when the accepted canon became accepted.

Yes and I could counter with the lack of authority of those meetings and with evidence that church fathers did not see it that way, and the fact that even today there are Catholic churches who do not agree but I think the subject has been covered on both sides now.

 

[Erose]

Agreed. One major issue is that the "katholikin" church is not the Catholic Church with a singular patriarch in Rome, but refers to the unified church prior to the 2 big schisms between Rome, the EO and the OO. So when Catholics go on about how the "Catholic" church determined the Scriptural canon, they overlook the two other churches.

I disagree to a point. Council at Hippo is classified as one of the councils of Carthage, whose canons were ratified in the East at the Synod of Trullo.

That being said, there is a difference between how at least the Eastern Orthodox churches in communion with Constantinople sees the Biblical canon.

A couple good references I have found on this matter are below:

The Canon of the Holy Bible for Orthodox Christians

Classification of the books of the Holy Bible

So there is a thought in at least some of the Orthodox churches that there are differing levels of canonicity; where in the Catholic Church, that is no longer (if ever) the case.

We do though see 3 tiers found in Scripture, which is simply broken down to: Gospels being the highest tier, then the rest of the NT writings, and then All of the OT writings.

This being said, IMO (I repeat IMO) the primary driver for that each Patriarchate established as their Bible Canon, is what is used in our Liturgies. Obviously they must be orthodox as well, and how some sense of being Divinely Inspired.

But the reason why the Catholic Church does not have the Prayer of Manasseh (for example) in our Bible Canon is because it is never used in our Liturgies.

 

[disciple Clint]

Ummm, not really in the West that I have found any evidence of. The reason why Fathers of Trent defined infallibly the Biblical canon was in direct response the challenges of the Protestant movement. No other reason for that.

The reason for the challenges of the Protestants was due to the world that Protestants evolved out of rise of classical rationalism. From this evolved the desire to translate bibles and convert liturgies into vernacular languages, but also a desire to translate the Bible freshly from the "originals". Thus the desire to discard the Vulgate, and translate Bibles from the Greek and Hebrew. The problem that this created was going back to the original language texts was not the same as going back to the original documents. For example the Masoretic text, which was the Hebrew bible of the Jews, is a latter witness to the OT documents than even the Vulgate and most especially the LXX. They didn't have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls at that time.

Anyway I'm running long on this point, but the main reason outside of a few exceptions such as Luther, why the disputed writings where challenged and eventually taken out of most Protestant Bibles was because those writings are not the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Long story short.

but the main reason outside of a few exceptions such as Luther, why the disputed writings where challenged and eventually taken out of most Protestant Bibles was because those writings are not the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Long story short.

Yes that is exactly where I started this discussion.

 

[Erose]

Yes and I could counter with the lack of authority of those meetings and with evidence that church fathers did not see it that way, and the fact that even today there are Catholic churches who do not agree but I think the subject has been covered on both sides now.

Well I think your issue on this matter is, understandably, you don’t understand how the Catholic Church works. Synods, even local ones, especially those in Rome have great authority. Also, the very fact that each claims that these are what are handed down, is a catchphrase for being part of Sacred Tradition.

The other thing here is that every single particular Church in communion with Rome has the exact same Bible Canon.

So I’m not sure where your counter can go. Those Patriarchates that are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church are not part of the question. Quite frankly they can define their Bible canon anyway they want. Not my issue.

You know the funny thing is I think it is entirely acceptable for any particular church or ecclesiastical community not in communion with Rome, can define what books they have in their Bible canons. My issue is do that but don’t start attacking others because they don’t agree with you.

The Catholic Church did add writings to our Bible, all what 73 of them; and that occurred somewhere inbetween the 1st century and 3rd century.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Xeno, it is more of some Catholics here that Rome and the Roman church determined EVERYTHING. Even when the EO and OO are brought up, the attitude is less than charitable, of "Oh yeah, you guys were along for the ride but really, WE did it all." It is just irritating to the historian in me.

Personally, I'd love a term regarding the church up to Great Schism era that avoids the modern linguistic problem of "Catholic" representing just the Catholic Communion.

History deals the cards, so to speak, the Latin church in the west is called Catholic and the Greek (Slavic, Arabic, and others) in the east are called Orthodox; it is true that the Catholic Church is also Orthodox, and no one can justifiably deny that the Orthodox churches in the east are Catholic. But history played out so that the church in the west is called Catholic and that in the east is called Orthodox. I am sure that Protestants are inclined to think of themselves as both orthodox and catholic while being keen not to be identified as Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes that is exactly where I started this discussion.

Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's my habit to type Catholic Church when I intend the churches in communion with the bishop of Rome and to type catholic when I intend something along the lines of 'according to the whole [body of christians]'. The former is about a specific Church the latter is about what is generally received. Thus, the Nicene Creed is catholic while the Catechism of the Catholic Church appertains to precisely one Church.

Well just as an amusing aside, the Eastern Orthodox consider themselves to be the Roman Catholic Church, because the former citizens of the Byzantine Empire, the Greek and Arab Christians, are known throughout the Mediterranean as Romans, and the Orthodox church considers itself the Catholic Church.

Also several churches have Catholic in their name other than the Roman church, including the Old Catholics, several of the continuing Anglican churches, and the Assyrian churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.

And I agree with Roman Catholics on this point. That is why my favorite Bible versions all contain at least some of the Deuterocanonical books. Indeed one of my main regrets about the NIV is that it lacks them. The second edition, and even the third edition despite its politically correct but erroneous removal of masculine pronouns in favor of gender neutral pronouns, are extremely stylistically elegant, and it would be lovely to see Zondervan release in the same style a translation of the Septuagint and the Ethiopic books, and for that matter a translation of the New Testament apocrypha, not all of which is heretical. For example, the Protoevangelion of James precisely aligns with Eastern Orthodox doctrine on the Nativity of the Theotokos.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And I agree with Roman Catholics on this point. That is why my favorite Bible versions all contain at least some of the Deuterocanonical books. Indeed one of my main regrets about the NIV is that it lacks them. The second edition, and even the third edition despite its politically correct but erroneous removal of masculine pronouns in favor of gender neutral pronouns, are extremely stylistically elegant, and it would be lovely to see Zondervan release in the same style a translation of the Septuagint and the Ethiopic books, and for that matter a translation of the New Testament apocrypha, not all of which is heretical. For example, the Protoevangelion of James precisely aligns with Eastern Orthodox doctrine on the Nativity of the Theotokos.

I wonder if sales of the NIV would decline among evangelicals if a "Catholic edition" were produced, or an edition such as you suggest?

 

[The Liturgist]

I wonder if sales of the NIV would decline among evangelicals if a "Catholic edition" were produced, or an edition such as you suggest?

I doubt it. That said I wouldn’t brand it as a Catholic edition, especially considering that since the Vulgate replaced the Vetus Latina as the main Catholic bible, only Eastern Rite Catholics use the Septuagint for all books in the Old Testament. In the Vulgate, everything except some of the books missing from the NIV and the Psalter used liturgically is translated into Latin from Hebrew.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I doubt it. That said I wouldn’t brand it as a Catholic edition, especially considering that since the Vulgate replaced the Vetus Latina as the main Catholic bible, only Eastern Rite Catholics use the Septuagint for all books in the Old Testament. In the Vulgate, everything except some of the books missing from the NIV and the Psalter used liturgically is translated into Latin from Hebrew.

Yes, that was the choice of saint Jerome; personally, I think he made a mistake when he did that.

 

[Erose]

Yes, that was the choice of saint Jerome; personally, I think he made a mistake when he did that.

I don't think you can say that, IMO. Here is why, and this also strikes down some false assumptions made by both Catholics and Protestants on the matter.

A) St. Jerome did not translate the Bible as a monolithic whole. He had no intention of creating a full Bible. Rather when it came to the OT, he translated the books on requests from friends and associates over his lifetime. It was latter when someone (I don't know who) that collected all his translations and put them together. That someone also took from the Old Vulgate Bible the missing books of this Bible that became the Vulgate.
B) The only books that St. Jerome was officially requested by the pope (Pope St. Damasus) to translate was the Gospels that we know of. He might have also been commission to complete the NT, but if so evidence of this no longer exists. If he wasn't then the rest of the Vulgate's NT is from the Old Latin Bible.
C) The newly compiled Bible didn't become the standard Bible in the West believe it or not until somewhere around the 9th century, from what I understand. Which makes sense when you consider every Bible back then was hand copied. That is a lot of Bibles to hand copy and send out as replacements for Bibles no longer usable.

So you really can't blame St. Jerome. You have the blame the person or group that gathered and combined and promoted and distributed the Latin Vulgate once it was complete.

 

[JSRG]

Yes, that was the choice of saint Jerome; personally, I think he made a mistake when he did that.

Mistake when he made what choice? Your phrasing is very unclear.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Mistake when he made what choice? Your phrasing is very unclear.

It was a mistake for saint Jerome to translate from the Hebrew texts in preference to translating from the LXX. Modern translators tend to favour the Masoretic text for their translation work in the Old Testament. But saint Jerome had - one presumes - more manuscripts in Greek and possibly more in Hebrew to draw from, potentially anyway. And because the New Testament quotes from the LXX frequently he had apostolic example to follow regarding the use of the LXX as source for translating the Old Testament.

 

[disciple Clint]

Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.

Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture

AND Christians have done just exactly that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

AND Christians have done just exactly that.

Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.

 

[Philip_B]

Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.

Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.

Most precisely Council of Trent (1545–1563)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!

Both; at the very least it was before Protestant Christians came into being.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Most precisely Council of Trent (1545–1563)

Been there, done that. Trent ratified Hippo/Carthage/Rome of the 4th century AD.