What's the calibre of your canon?

The Liturgist · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
Upon its examination, it is clear that they are not inspired, nor shown to be useful to the in faith and practice.

I hear people say that, but Wisdom ch. 2 is the most moving and beautiful Christological prophecy I have read in the Old Testament and was compiled between 130 and 60 BC. And the longer versions of Esther, Daniel, etc are more spiritual and moving. I cannot praise the Wisdom of Sirach enough. Tobit is a Gospel prophecy. The list goes on. Indeed many Eastern Orthodox regard some of these books as more important than some books in the 66 book canon, even Leviticus and Numbers.

The Liturgist · Jan 17, 2023

fhansen said:
And Hippo and Carthage were also two of the same councils that formally determined the canon of the New Testament.

For the Roman church, yes, by accepting the Athanasian canon which was already in force in the autocephalous Church of Alexandria. Rome accepting the Athanasian canon ensured Antioch would accept it, which otherwise is unlikely given the bitter differences between the two autocephalous churches at the time which would be exposed at the Council of Ephesus with the pointless objections raised by Patriarch John of Antioch to the doctrinal statements of Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria, who once again had Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome on his side.

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

The Liturgist said:
I hear people say that, but Wisdom ch. 2 is the most moving and beautiful Christological prophecy I have read in the Old Testament and was compiled between 130 and 60 BC. And the longer versions of Esther, Daniel, etc are more spiritual and moving. I cannot praise the Wisdom of Sirach enough. Tobit is a Gospel prophecy. The list goes on. Indeed many Eastern Orthodox regard some of these books as more important than some books in the 66 book canon, even Leviticus and Numbers.

It sounds like Wisdom 2:1-9 contradicts the whole message of Ecclesiastes. Thus, I cannot agree with you.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

The Liturgist said:
I hear people say that, but Wisdom ch. 2 is the most moving and beautiful Christological prophecy I have read in the Old Testament and was compiled between 130 and 60 BC.

Still the Jews knew enough not to place it in the OT canon that they kept in the temple. Even Jerome noted this when he created the Vulgate

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
Still the Jews knew enough not to place it in the OT canon that they kept in the temple. Even Jerome noted this when he created the Vulgate

I was going to say that, but I decided not to, because they will defend it regardless of their opinion.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
Still the Jews knew enough not to place it in the OT canon that they kept in the temple. Even Jerome noted this when he created the Vulgate

The Jews "knew" no better than to reject the Lord their God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. It is unwise to follow their example in this thing. It is unsafe to follow their example regarding scripture because after rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ they also rejected the New testament.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Jews "knew" no better than to reject the Lord

That logic fails the moment we notice that "The Lord" quotes the OT Canon instead of "ignoring it because Jews rejected Jesus" . Paul and ever NT writer quotes it. Even the Orthodox and RCC quote the OT text. The Hebrew Bible is NOT in debate since all Christian denominations accept it as scritpure. The only thing we are debating about is what is NOT in the Jewish Bible - the OT.

The idea that neither Christ nor the Apostles quoted from the OT since the Jews of Christ's day were in many cases disloyal fails to get out of the gate.

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Jews "knew" no better than to reject the Lord their God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. It is unwise to follow their example in this thing. It is unsafe to follow their example regarding scripture because after rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ they also rejected the New testament.

Josephus said that the Jews only recognized 22 of the OT books as Scripture during the first-century, interestingly.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
Josephus said that the Jews only recognized 22 of the OT books as Scripture during the first-century, interestingly.

It is interesting.

The historical reliability of Josephus regarding the canon of the Old Testament is a matter of debate among scholars. On one hand, Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century AD and had access to Jewish religious texts and traditions. He also wrote extensively about Jewish history and culture. As such, his writings can provide valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the time period.

On the other hand, some scholars have criticized Josephus for his tendency to present a biased and overly-flattering picture of Jewish history and culture. Additionally, Josephus was not a theologian or biblical scholar and may not have had a deep understanding of the canon of the Old Testament. Furthermore, it is also important to note that Josephus didn't have any direct connection to the canonization process of the Old Testament.

In his work, "Against Apion" Josephus references the canon of the Old Testament and states that Jews recognize 22 books that correspond to the canon of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which is widely accepted by the early church. However, his statements should be treated with caution as some scholars have pointed out that Josephus may have been influenced by the views of the Jewish sect he belonged to, the Pharisees, or by the Greek speaking Jewish community of Alexandria.

In conclusion, while Josephus' writings can provide valuable historical context and insights, they should be read critically and in conjunction with other sources in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the canon of the Old Testament.

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
On the other hand, some scholars have criticized Josephus for his tendency to present a biased and overly-flattering picture of Jewish history and culture. Additionally, Josephus was not a theologian or biblical scholar and may not have had a deep understanding of the canon of the Old Testament. Furthermore, it is also important to note that Josephus didn't have any direct connection to the canonization process of the Old Testament.

How does this affect the reflection of the universally accepted recognition of the Jewish canon during that time? Today, Jews recognize only 24 books that likely correspond to the 22 books Josephus mentions, which some scholars believe that a few of those books, like Ruth and Judges, were originally connected to each other. It seems that we Christians departed from that tradition when the Septuagint, which contained the deuteronomical book, became the dominant use in the early Church. While Josephus did not have any direct connection to the canonization process, there would be little reason to doubt his own account of Jewish practice, especially in regard to their sacred writings. Saying that he "overly-flattering" the Jewish history and culture by reducing the books of their worship sounds off.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
That logic fails the moment we notice that "The Lord" quotes the OT Canon instead of "ignoring it because Jews rejected Jesus" .

The Lord quotes some texts from the Old Testament and does not quote others. There is nothing in his quotes to define the canon. He, for example, does not quote from a number of old testament books yet those books are received as canonical. The error in logic present in this discussion is that of making the Lord's use of texts into a test for canonicity. He never intended it to be so.

BobRyan said:
Paul and ever NT writer quotes it. Even the Orthodox and RCC quote the OT text.

The quotes in Paul's letters and in other New Testament books do not define a canon for the Old Testament and there is no indication in those quotes that the author is attempting to define a canon.

BobRyan said:
The Hebrew Bible is NOT in debate since all Christian denominations accept it as scritpure. The only thing we are debating about is what is NOT in the Jewish Bible - the OT.

The canon of the Old Testament within the Catholic Church has a long and complex history. The process of canonization, or determining which texts were considered inspired scripture, began in the Jewish community and continued in the early Christian church.

The Old Testament canon within Judaism was not fixed in the early period but it was recognized by the 2nd century BC that certain texts were considered authoritative and were set apart as sacred writings. The books that were included in the canon of the Jewish Scriptures were those that were considered to have been written by the prophets, and that were recognized as such by the Jewish community.

In the early Christian church, there was some debate and disagreement over which texts should be considered part of the canon of scripture. The canon of the Old Testament within Christianity was not definitively settled until the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), where the canon of the Old Testament was established as the Septuagint version, which included several books not present in the Jewish canon, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees. This canon was later confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546.

The canon of the Old Testament within the Catholic Church is composed of 46 books, which include the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the seven books of the Septuagint version. These books are divided into four categories: the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Wisdom books and the Prophets.

It is worth noting that the canon of the Old Testament within Protestant denominations is not the same as the Catholic canon and includes only 39 books.

BobRyan said:
The idea that neither Christ nor the Apostles quoted from the OT since the Jews of Christ's day were in many cases disloyal fails to get out of the gate.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
How does this affect the reflection of the universally accepted recognition of the Jewish canon during that time?

The content of the Jewish canon is not universally accepted by Christians.

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The content of the Jewish canon is not universally accepted by Christians.

The LXX, which contained the apocrypha, was almost, if not entirely, exclusively used by the early church. It is likely evident from this that Christians began to recognize these deuteronomical writings, even when the Jews did not.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
The LXX, which contained the apocrypha, was almost, if not entirely, exclusively used by the early church. It is likely evident from this that Christians began to recognize these deuteronomical writings, even when the Jews did not.

The tests for canonicity included use within the churches during the liturgy.

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The tests for canonicity included use within the churches during the liturgy.

A number of other books were in liturgical use, too, that are no longer in our New Testament canon, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. Does that mean we should include it?

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
A number of other books were in liturgical use, too, that are no longer in our New Testament canon, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. Does that mean we should include it?

Catholic teaching on the canon of the New Testament affirms that the canon of the New Testament is composed of 27 books that were written by the apostles and their close associates, and that were recognized as inspired scripture by the early Christian church. The canon of the New Testament includes the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 21 letters (also known as epistles), and the Book of Revelation.

The process of canonization for the New Testament books began in the early Christian community and continued over several centuries. While many texts were considered for inclusion in the canon, only those that were deemed to have been written by the apostles or their close associates, and that were recognized as authoritative by the early Christian communities, were ultimately included.

One text that was considered for inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, but ultimately was not accepted, is The Shepherd of Hermas. This text is considered a part of the early Christian literature, it was widely read and highly valued by the early Christians, but it was not considered to have apostolic authorship and it was not recognized as authoritative by all the early Christian communities.

The Catholic Church recognizes The Shepherd of Hermas as a valuable early Christian text, but it is not considered part of the canon of the New Testament. It is included in the collection of writings known as the "New Testament Apocrypha" which have a lower level of authority than the canonized books.

In summary, the canon of the New Testament within the Catholic Church is composed of 27 books that were written by the apostles and their close associates, and that were recognized as inspired scripture by the early Christian church. The Shepherd of Hermas, although widely read and valued by the early Christians, is not considered part of the canon but it is considered as a valuable early Christian text and included in the collection of writings known as the "New Testament Apocrypha".

Jonaitis · Jan 17, 2023

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Shepherd of Hermas, although widely read and valued by the early Christians, is not considered part of the canon but it is considered as a valuable early Christian text and included in the collection of writings known as the "New Testament Apocrypha".

Seems a bit ironic that the Old Testament apocryphal writings, that are rejected by the Jews, are accepted, but not the New Testament apocrypha, which are rejected by Christians. I read somewhere a while ago that the Quran contains stories from a few of apocryphal gospels. I find this all funny.

chevyontheriver · Jan 17, 2023

Brother-Mike said:
My canon’s caliber? 66mm scale-piercing full metal many-colored jacket.

I like the slightly larger caliber with a bit better penetrating power.

Xeno.of.athens · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
Seems a bit ironic that the Old Testament apocryphal writings, that are rejected by the Jews, are accepted, but not the New Testament apocrypha, which are rejected by Christians. I read somewhere a while ago that the Quran contains stories from a few of apocryphal gospels. I find this all funny.

The Old Testament Deuterocanon, also known as the Apocrypha, is accepted as canonical by Catholics because it was included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by early Christians. The early Church fathers also quoted from these books and considered them to be part of the canon.

The New Testament Apocrypha, on the other hand, were not widely accepted by the early Church. They were not included in the Septuagint and were not quoted by the early Church fathers as being part of the canon. Additionally, these books were not considered to have been written by the apostles or their close associates, which was an important criteria for canonicity in the early Church.

It is also worth noting that the canon of scripture is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of tradition, the deuterocanonical books were approved by the council of Carthage in 397 AD, long after the death of the last apostle and the end of the revelation period.

The Liturgist · Jan 17, 2023

Jonaitis said:
A number of other books were in liturgical use, too, that are no longer in our New Testament canon, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. Does that mean we should include it?

The Athanasian Canon, which is the New Testament canon, says that the Shepherd is useful for moral instruction and catechesis but is not to be read in the churches (liturgically), so no, although it is approved apocrypha, as opposed to say, the Pistis Sophia or the Acts of Thomas, which are entirely heretical or corrupted by heretical content which may or may not be interpolated.

What's the calibre of your canon?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Soli Deo Gloria

Junior Member

Soli Deo Gloria

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Junior Member

Soli Deo Gloria

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Soli Deo Gloria

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Soli Deo Gloria

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Soli Deo Gloria

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads