Calling all OO, EO, CC...

[WarriorAngel]

Could everyone from the Apostolic Churches please explain which canon's were ordained in the Eucemincal council of aproximate 382-384 AD...?

There are revised histories suggesting the CC added the dueterocanon around 1500 AD.

Thanks for the help.

 

[PaladinValer]

Why are Anglicans always left out?

According from my research, the very first synod or council that ruled upon the Holy Canon was that of the Synod of Hippo in 393 ce. It declared that the Septuagint books were Canon.

Further early councils said the exact same thing: Carthage in 397 ce and 419 ce.

 

[Renton405]

Counsel(Synod) of Hippo

It was one of the main canonization counsels..

One of the big reasons to include the apocrypha..

Wiki:

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 A.D. which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early christian church. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426.

Some were attended by St. Augustine. The synod of 393 is most known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of the New Testament that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon, including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha


But wait a second, I thought it was the counsel of Trent!! *Sigh* .. History people, History

And Josiah says the RCC had nothing to do with the canonization of the bible

 

[Knowledge3]

I don't have the exact dates but the books of the Bible were each listed in order. Each book of the Bible was seen as a separate book forming a collection of books that formed the content of the canons. St. Augustine was converted A.D. 386.

 

[Solidlyhere]

Whichever "Council" was the last to look at the Canon issue, the Canon has remained the same since Carthage (circa 397).

Even earlier, at the Council of Laodicea, the Canon was the same (except for Revelation, which the Church had been wanting to get rid of). And for 100s of years before the Council, this is what most Churches believed were the authentic books of the Bible.

And Church historian Eusebius (whose book is still available), in the early 300s was very close in his list of valid books of the Bible (except that he didn't like Jude). He mentioned that Second and Third John were disputed by certain Church members at the time, as well as Second Peter and James.

 

[Oblio]

Why are Anglicans always left out?

I believe ya'll were first in line in the '...' in the OP

 

[Oblio]

On a more serious note, I know I hesitate to include Anglicans in church litanies because it's harder to spell than EO/OO (I know, pretty lame) What is the best abrv. ? CoE ?

 

[Polycarp1]

As far as I know, no Ecumenical Council (i.e., General Council of all bishops of the united Church) ever addressed the issue of the canon. The Canon was, however, defined at a couple of regional councils, Hippo being evidently the first, in response to local heresies.

The reason for this was approximately the same as no Council ever saw it necessary to define that the Messiah was in fact Jesus of Nazareth and not John the Baptist or James Justus -- it was understood. Whenever anyone had occasion to recur to the complete compilation of Scripture in one of the Codices, it was the Septuagint plus the New Testament which they found there.

There were various backings and fillings in the 2nd century regarding which books were in the New Testament: II Peter, Jude, and Revelation being doubted by some church leaders, and the Shepherd of Hermas coming close to acceptance as Scripture. But the evolving consensus stood by the set now universally accepted when all was said and done. Note that this deals with the New Testament; the Old Testament was the Septuagint by common consent.

When Jerome went to translate the Bible into what became the Vulgate, he hesitated over the Deuterocanon, as his researches had indicated that the Jews of Palestine did not accept it, but he allowed himself to be guided by the leaders of the Church.

Kindly note that this was the state of affairs in the undivided Church, the case after Chalcedon when the Oriental Orthodox split off, and the case between 1054 and 1500 when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches mutually excommunicated each other. Though there were disagreements strong enough to provoke schism, everybody used the same Bible, including the Deuterocanon.

After the Reformation, in response to the acts of some Protestant groups, the Council of Trent defined the canon for Roman Catholics as comprising the Septuagint without I and II Esdras, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Orthodox have never formally defined a canon, to the best of my knowledge (I believe that was confirmed in a TAW thread a couple of years back), but have always used the full Septuagint. This is true of the Eastern Orthodox and most of the Oriental Orthodox; the Church of Ethiopia has a Bible including about a dozen more books than the Septuagint, including the First Epistle of Clement, the Book of Enoch, and the Book of Jubilees. Whether this is defined by formal canon I am not aware, but it's my impression it is not.

Anglicans (and Methodists, though most Methodists in my experience are surprised to find it out) accept the full Septuagint, but regard the Deuterocanon as being of a sort of "second class" status -- suitable to read, even as Scripture, but not appropriate to found doctrine upon. Lutherans have something similar: a unique "graded scale" in which some parts of Scripture stand higher than others, with the Deuterocanon at the bottom.

I am unfamiliar with what Protestant groups beyond those named consider the Deuterocanon as Scripture, either fully or "with an asterisk."

But on a worldwide basis, the largest churches, containing over 70% of Christendom, all accept the Deuterocanon in some manner.

 

[PaladinValer]

LOL...thanks Oblio

CoE (Church of England) is like the Russian Orthodox Church; it is an autocephalous church within the Anglican Church. Same goes for all the other provinces.

I suppose "AC" would fit (Anglican Churchers)

 

[Oblio]

AC it is then

 

[Polycarp1]

On a more serious note, I know I hesitate to include Anglicans in church litanies because it's harder to spell than EO/OO (I know, pretty lame) What is the best abrv. ? CoE ?

Nope -- "Church of England" is one national church, about equivalent to us praying for "you guys in the Greek Orthodox Church"! If you want a shorthand, "AC" (for Anglican Communion) would work.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, looks like we're all posting the same things at cross purposes. (Now we know how the Seventy felt! )

 

[PaladinValer]

We must be inspired, Polycarp1!

 

[WarriorAngel]

OBLIO..... could you add AC into the title.

I like AC, especially when I am hot. j/k

So I was off the date by 10 years. Well, that's ok...I knew around the right time.

And I thought the Bishops of every Church attended.
My bad.

 

[E.C.]

And I thought the Bishops of every Church attended.
My bad.

They probably did. I'm not sure...

One thing to add: From Pentecost (give or take a few decades) to when King James wrote his version of the Bible, the Old Testament used was the Greek Septuagint. It was translated by about 70 Hebrew scholars (from different tribes) into Greek by order of Ptolemy back in the BC days.

Unfortunately, I believe St. Jerome when translating the Vulgate may have used the Septuagint along with some Hebrew texts? Correct if wrong please.

Most unfortunately, King James used Hebrew texts. The problem with this is that the Jews had a council in 90 AD (give or take a few years) and took out the deuterocannonical books (aka Apocrypha).

Ever since the Bible was first "published" the Orthodox, when translating the Bible into a new language, still use the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament. It is the Protestants who have used the post 90 AD Hebrew texts and this has caused A LOT of arguments, debates and controversies.

 

[NewCatholic]

The canons were established as part of the Canon at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393 - Here is the canon from that council:
"It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."


This OT canon was then confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Here is that Council Canon:
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees."

These books are part of the oldest existing manuscript of the Bible, the Codex Vaticanus.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Canon is still Ecumenical though, WarriorAngel

I'll post why later today (Happy Trinity Sunday!).

 

[Renton405]

But on a worldwide basis, the largest churches, containing over 70% of Christendom, all accept the Deuterocanon in some manner.

I think that should really say something....espesially since all apostolic churches are led by the holy spirit..