Do Christian denominations approach epistemology differently (or do we all agree)?

[The Liturgist]

Do you have a source or sources to back this up? I was under the impression that the canon of 66 was decided on in one of the early church councils.

Nope, it actually is simply the canon used by some ancient Jews connected with what became Rabinnical Judaism and Karaite Judaism as we now know it, but not other branches of ancient Judaism some of which still survive, such as the Beta Israel (whose Scriptural canon, unsurprisingly, corresponds with the Old Testament used by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which is to be expected since the Ethiopian Orthodox, being the only predominantly ethnically Jewish Christian denomination to survive from antiquity with the exception of an endogamous subset of Mar Thoma Christians in Syria who unlike the rest of the Mar Thoma Christians, who are descended from Jews and Gentiles evangelized by the mission of St. Thomas the Apostle and his disciples Addai and Mari, who also founded most of the other surviving historical parts of the Church of the East and the eastern provinces of the Syriac Orthodox Church, basically, the churches in Edessa, the Nineveh Plains, Seleucia-Cstesiphon (also known as Babylon since it was the replacement of ancient Babylon, and was in turn replaced by Baghdad, due to movements of the Tigris river rendering the two previous cities uninhatbitable, although unfortunately for purposes of archaeology Baghdad is proximate to ancient Babylon and has expanded to basically cover it).

The early Christian church never agreed on a single Old Testament canon, but also never used the 66 book canon, which was not a thing among Christianity until the Protestant Reformation, since the early Protestants translated the Masoretic BIbles in use in Judaism since around 800 AD under the questionable assumption that their Hebrew text was more reliable than the ancient Septuagint or the translations made by the early Church such as the Peshitta, the Vulgate, the Coptic bibles, the ancient Armenian, Georgian and Church Slavonic bibles, et cetera, even while continuing to use the Byzantine Text Type which had been maintained by the Greek Orthodox, but which was later to be questioned after the theft of the Codex Sinaiticus and the interest this caused in the related Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, which represent (except for the Gospels in Alexandrinus) the so-called Minority Text of Alexandrian Text Type. There is also a third text type with regards to the New Testament which had also fallen out of use, the Western Text Type, the two examples of which I am aware of are the New Testament from the Vetus Latina, the original Latin Bible translation from the Second Century, commissioned by St. Victor who was the Bishop of Rome but not styled Pope, and the Vetus Syra, which contained only the four Gospels but was superior to the Diatessaron, a Gospel harmony (a book that contains all four Gospels blended into a single text, like the Jefferson BIble, usually with omissions or forced reconciliations, also like the Jefferson Bible, and thus obviously inferior to having the four canonical Gospels, especially since Tatian, who translated and compiled the Diatessaron, later decided to become an adherent of Gnostic Christianity and established a sect that was closely related to the one established by Severian, in the Syrian subset of Gnosticism, which tended to be more noxious in many respects than the more widely known Roman Gnostics like Valentinus).

The closest thing to an ecumenical consensus would be the list of books shared in common by the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans (some of whom, those who still adhere to the 39 articles officially, which excludes the Episcopal Church and most others in the US, believe that the deuterocanonical books, which they call the “apocrypha” cannot be used for any doctrinal purpose but are valuable as sources of moral instruction and edification, however, those who have rejected the 39 articles tend to be more willing to accept the books as a source of doctrine, but this varies from Anglican to Anglican in such cases). But even these individual churches often have differences in scriptural canon - for example, the Eastern Orthodox churches of Slavonic origin have a slightly different canon than those historically connected to the Byzantine Empire such as the Church of Greece, Church of Constantinople, Church of Jerusalem, Church of Alexandria and Church of Antioch), the Roman Catholics use multiple Bibles including the Peshitta and the Orthodox bibles in their sui juris Eastern churches, and the Coptic Orthodox, until it granted ecclesiastical sovereignity to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, historically included it, and as a result had three separate Old Testaments, one translated in Coptic in use among the Copts of Egypt, a newer inadequate Arabic bible which the Coptic Orthodox Church is seeking to replace, and one, written in the ancient Ge’ez langauge, in use in the lands now known as Ethiopia and Eritrea (plus Amharic and other translations of that ancient Abyssinian scripture, which includes the Old Testament also used by the Beta Israel as well as an uncontroversial translation of the New Testament).

 

[FireDragon76]

For a long time I accepted the Protestant 66 books as the result of some ecclesiastical decision made through theological decision.

I discovered, though, that was not the case. It's not a matter of a well-considered decision to omit them. Protestant bibles carry only the 66 books because it was cheaper to print bibles without the Apocrypha and nobody complained.

Sort of... Financial considerations were definitely a factor, but more importantly, Bible societies were controlled by British Evangelical Anglicans (who sometimes self-identified as Puritans) and Dissenters, many of whom objected to the additional books in principle.

Interestingly enough, for several centuries in England, it was illegal to print Bibles without the apocryphal literature. The Evangelical or Puritan faction was somewhat of a countercultural movement and never had a dominant influence in English religious life, and its opposition to the Apocrypha wasn't consistent, but grew over the centuries from relative indifference.

 

[RileyG]

Sort of... Financial considerations were definitely a factor, but more importantly, Bible societies were controlled by British Evangelical Anglicans (who sometimes self-identified as Puritans) and Dissenters, many of whom objected to the additional books in principle.

Interestingly enough, for several centuries in England, it was illegal to print Bibles without the apocryphal literature. The Evangelical or Puritan faction was somewhat of a countercultural movement and never had a dominant influence in English religious life, and its opposition to the Apocrypha wasn't consistent, but grew over the centuries from relative indifference.

That's very interesting. I know, in modern times, there are King James Bible with the *Apocrypha included.

(*Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc would not say the "Apoyphra" of the Protestant Canon is truly "Apocrypha." Rather the term that is used is "deuterocanonical" /second canon. Indeed, many of those books are used into the daily office for the Church of England/Anglican Church.

Roman Catholics include 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, & Sirach as canonical. Eastern Orthodox include 3 Maccabees as canonical. Oriental Orthodox may include other books as canonical including 4 Maccabees, Enoch etc depending on the community.)

 

[FireDragon76]

That's very interesting. I know, in modern times, there are King James Bible with the *Apocrypha included.

(*Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc would not say the "Apoyphra" of the Protestant Canon is truly "Apocrypha." Rather the term that is used is "deuterocanonical" /second canon. Indeed, many of those books are used into the daily office for the Church of England/Anglican Church.

Roman Catholics include 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, & Sirach as canonical. Eastern Orthodox include 3 Maccabees as canonical. Oriental Orthodox may include other books as canonical including 4 Maccabees, Enoch etc depending on the community.)

If I remember correctly, Protestant Bibles have 1 or 2 more books than in the Catholic Bibles, but the list is largely the same as Catholics.

We read from the story of Susana in the addition to the book of Daniel last year. So they can be read in our churches, but they aren't considered a source of doctrine in the Reformed or Lutheran traditions.

 

[RileyG]

If I remember correctly, Protestant Bibles have 1 or 2 more books than in the Catholic Bibles, but the list is largely the same as Catholics.

We read from Susana in the addition to the kook of Daniel last year. So they can be read in our churches, but they aren't considered a source of doctrine in the Reformed or Lutheran traditions.

That's interesting. Susana, from the Book of Daniel, is not official canon for the Protestant canon.

The seven books that Protestants don't have are 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, & Sirach, PLUS additions from Esther & Daniel (Bel & the Dragon, Susana).

Don't ask me why, but I know that by heart.

****Probably from my Introduction to Christianity course in college. it was drilled into my head *****

 

[David Lamb]

If I remember correctly, Protestant Bibles have 1 or 2 more books than in the Catholic Bibles, but the list is largely the same as Catholics.

We read from the story of Susana in the addition to the book of Daniel last year. So they can be read in our churches, but they aren't considered a source of doctrine in the Reformed or Lutheran traditions.

I think you have it the wrong way round. Protestant bibles have 66 books. Roman Catholic bibles have 73. So Roman Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.

 

[The Liturgist]

If I remember correctly, Protestant Bibles have 1 or 2 more books than in the Catholic Bibles, but the list is largely the same as Catholics.

We read from the story of Susana in the addition to the book of Daniel last year. So they can be read in our churches, but they aren't considered a source of doctrine in the Reformed or Lutheran traditions.

My understanding is that Lutheran churches have an open canon and thus these books can be used. In the case of Calvinism, John Calvin himself regarded Baruch as protocanon, but aside from that book, I know of no Calvinist denominations except perhaps the Reformed Episcopal Church (I haven’t looked at their liturgy recently) that use the deuterocanonical books. And from my clerical background in the UCC, had someone suggested that Baruch be regarded as protocanon, the relatively small number of ardently reformed clergy who remained, including those at my seminary, who were quite rare in number, would have referred to the idea of Semper Reformanda , while a few others might have pointed out that those books were not historically used by Congregationalists or the Evangelical Reformed (of the historic Church of Prussia, from whom our friends in the LCMS also originated, seeking however these days a restoration of the Lutheran Orthodoxy historically characteristic of the Church of Saxony, which makes me curious as to which Lutheran church immigrants to the US from the Kingdom of Saxony joined). However many UCC clergy in my experience were open minded about the canon, for reasons as much to do with theological liberalism as anything else. I took the view then, that I take now, that the 66 book canon is lacking compared to the larger one, but never pushed the matter, but rather it was my private belief, and thus contributed to my decision to depart when the relatively traditional senior pastor left, since it appeared as though he would have been likely replaced by someone I would have been less happy to work with, particularly given my support of the confessional movement in the UCC which later became the Faithful and Welcoming movement.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think you have it the wrong way round. Protestant bibles have 66 books. Roman Catholic bibles have 73. So Roman Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.

No, he is referring to the KJV, which does have slightly more books than translations of the Septuagint or the Vulgate, since rather than including the longer versions from the Septuagint of certain books such as Daniel, (or appending the extra material from the Septuagint to those books, which is the approach taken by most Roman Catholic oriented Bibles such as translations of the Vulgate), includes the additional portions of Daniel and other books as extra books. So there are indeed more books in a complete King James Version than one would find in an equivalent Roman Catholic Bible, but as stated previously due to the influence of dissenters such as Puritans and Baptists most KJVs published from the 18th century onward are missing the deuterocanonical books, and this is now legal, despite the KJV still being under Crown Copyright (which I am personally opposed to; I believe that it should be released into the Public Domain along with all Anglican liturgical materials; the Episcopal Church in the US releases all of its Books of Common Prayer into the Public Domain and the KJV is already in the Public Domain in most countries, and furthermore there has been a consolidation of printing licenses for the KJV so that effectively only Oxford and Cambridge, and I think by now only Cambridge, actually print it, so it amounts to an unneeded revenue stream*).

* This view reflects my disestablishmentarian sentiments; I did at one time subscribe to antidisestablishmentarianism with regards to the Church of England, but then I realized the established nature of the Church has been largely responsible for the radical move away from traditional theology seen in the church since the retirement of Archbishop Rowan Williams.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you have it the wrong way round. Protestant bibles have 66 books. Roman Catholic bibles have 73. So Roman Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.

No, I don't. Some Protestant Bibles actually contain more books than Catholic Bibles, with the additional texts beyond the 66 canonical texts grouped into a section called "Apocrypha". I know because I've owned several just like that.

 

[RileyG]

I think you have it the wrong way round. Protestant bibles have 66 books. Roman Catholic bibles have 73. So Roman Catholic bibles have 7 more books than Protestant bibles.

Yes.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes.

@FireDragon is talking about the complete King James Version, which has more books than the Douai Rheims since it features the additional portions of Daniel in three separate books rather than simply having the longer version of Daniel.

The actual length of the complete KJV is around the same. If memory serves the only material that the Douai Rheims, the Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible and the NASB and NRSV editions with deuterocanonical books have that the KJV lacks is the longer version of Esther.

Orthodox Bibles also have Psalm 151, and the Douai Rheims has St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter which has different versification from his translation of a Hebraic psalter, which by the way I have never seen an English translation of.

In the interests of thoroughness St. Jerome translated material commonly found in fourth century Bibles that was being considered for inclusion in the canon, much of which he was skeptical of, but most of this material was rejected, for example, the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which was deemed spurious by St. Athanasius. Even if it is not spurious, and I suspect it is, it says nothing St. Paul did not say elsewhere and is also extremely short, but unlike his other very short pastoral epistle to Philemon, which is uncontroversially canonical, since there is nothing unique in Laodiceans it would be superfluous anyway. The same can be said for 3 Corinthians which was included in some Armenian bibles.

Fortunately all churches were able to agree on the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius, even the Lutherans, despite Luther’s qualms about four of the books.

Alas the history of wide divergences in Old Testament canon goes straight back to the early church. For instance, the canon St. Athanasius proposed for the Old Testament is different from all presently accepted canons, in that it has a different virw of what is protocanonical and what is edifying apocrypha (it would be misleading to call it deuterocanon, since St. Athanasius prohibited the liturgical use of books he allowed to be read for moral edification).

Because of the lack of consensus, my approach is one of maximalism: I accept all OT books recognized by at least one ancient church as canonical, and I reject the 66 book NT canon since it has no history of use prior to the 16th century, and even John Calvin disagreed with it insofar as he regarded Baruch to be protocanon.

Additionally, Psalms 152 through 155, which survive in Syriac and are quite beautiful, I regard as acceptable for use as ancient hymns as they contain no false doctrine.

 

[David Lamb]

No, I don't. Some Protestant Bibles actually contain more books than Catholic Bibles, with the additional texts beyond the 66 canonical texts grouped into a section called "Apocrypha". I know because I've owned several just like that.

I know that the King James Version has been published both with and without the Apocrypha, but no Protestants I have heard of view those apocryphal books as part of God's inspired word.

 

[FireDragon76]

I know that the King James Version has been published both with and without the Apocrypha, but no Protestants I have heard of view those apocryphal books as part of God's inspired word.

At the time of the Reformation, the notion of biblical inspiration wasn't as crystalized as it was during the 19th century when that concept rose to prominence in Protestant scholastic theology. The books were separated because they weren't considered a basis for doctrine, but they were still considered edifying to read.

 

[David Lamb]

At the time of the Reformation, the notion of biblical inspiration wasn't as crystalized as it was during the 19th century when that concept rose to prominence in Protestant scholastic theology. The books were separated because they weren't considered a basis for doctrine, but they were still considered edifying to read.

The inspiration of the Scriptures is taught in the bible itself. It is also found in the historical confessions of faith, for example, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, after listing the 66 books, says: "All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith does likewise: "All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." Both long before the 19th century.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is also found in the historical confessions of faith, for example, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, after listing the 66 books, says: "All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith does likewise: "All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." Both long before the 19th century.

1689 is over a century and a half after the Reformation.

In contrast, Luther's views of inspiration are not necessarily akin to modern evangelicals. The notion of biblical inerrancy wouldn't have been comprehensible to Luther, for instance, as Luther operated from a premodern epistemology. Luther was primarily concerned with whether a book was apostolic in origin, or whether it was widely accepted among Jews as authoritative. He rejected some books as as normative, even though they are found in present Protestant Bibles, because even in Luther's time, the apostolicity was contested. He relied on Jerome's canon primarily in understanding which books were canonical in the Old Testament. However, canonicity is not necessarily the limits of God's inspiration, merely the rule for faith. And for the sake of letting some things stand according to the historic wittness of the Church, he included many of the books he considered dubious.

 

[David Lamb]

1689 is over a century and a half after the Reformation.

Yes, I know that. But inspiration is taught in the bible itself:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

In contrast, Luther's views of inspiration are not necessarily akin to modern evangelicals. The notion of biblical infallibility wouldn't have been comprehensible to Luther, for instance, as Luther operated from a premodern epistemology. Luther was primarily concerned with whether a book was apostolic in origin, or whether it was widely accepted among Jews as authoritative. He rejected some books as as normative, even though they are found in present Protestant Bibles, because even in Luther's time, the apostolicity was contested. He relied on Jerome's canon primarily in understanding which books were canonical in the Old Testament. However, canonicity is not necessarily the limits of God's inspiration, merely the rule for faith. And for the sake of letting some things stand according to the historic wittness of the Church, he included many of the books he considered dubious.

My knowledge of Luther is not sufficient to be able to comment usefully on this.

 

[The Liturgist]

I know that the King James Version has been published both with and without the Apocrypha, but no Protestants I have heard of view those apocryphal books as part of God's inspired word.

Well, now you have heard of some. John Calvin, and a great many high church Anglicans including the Episcopal Church USA and other Anglican denominations, particularly those without the 39 Articles imposing a limitation on the uses of those books.

 

[David Lamb]

Well, now you have heard of some. John Calvin, and a great many high church Anglicans including the Episcopal Church USA and other Anglican denominations, particularly those without the 39 Articles imposing a limitation on the uses of those books.

I know that the 39 Articles include the Apocryphal books of 1 & 2 Esdras.

 

[RileyG]

I know that the 39 Articles include the Apocryphal books of 1 & 2 Esdras.

Also, some of the apocryphal books are read during the Daily Office in the Anglican Communion.

 

[RileyG]

@FireDragon is talking about the complete King James Version, which has more books than the Douai Rheims since it features the additional portions of Daniel in three separate books rather than simply having the longer version of Daniel.

The actual length of the complete KJV is around the same. If memory serves the only material that the Douai Rheims, the Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible and the NASB and NRSV editions with deuterocanonical books have that the KJV lacks is the longer version of Esther.

Orthodox Bibles also have Psalm 151, and the Douai Rheims has St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter which has different versification from his translation of a Hebraic psalter, which by the way I have never seen an English translation of.

In the interests of thoroughness St. Jerome translated material commonly found in fourth century Bibles that was being considered for inclusion in the canon, much of which he was skeptical of, but most of this material was rejected, for example, the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which was deemed spurious by St. Athanasius. Even if it is not spurious, and I suspect it is, it says nothing St. Paul did not say elsewhere and is also extremely short, but unlike his other very short pastoral epistle to Philemon, which is uncontroversially canonical, since there is nothing unique in Laodiceans it would be superfluous anyway. The same can be said for 3 Corinthians which was included in some Armenian bibles.

Fortunately all churches were able to agree on the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius, even the Lutherans, despite Luther’s qualms about four of the books.

Alas the history of wide divergences in Old Testament canon goes straight back to the early church. For instance, the canon St. Athanasius proposed for the Old Testament is different from all presently accepted canons, in that it has a different virw of what is protocanonical and what is edifying apocrypha (it would be misleading to call it deuterocanon, since St. Athanasius prohibited the liturgical use of books he allowed to be read for moral edification).

Because of the lack of consensus, my approach is one of maximalism: I accept all OT books recognized by at least one ancient church as canonical, and I reject the 66 book NT canon since it has no history of use prior to the 16th century, and even John Calvin disagreed with it insofar as he regarded Baruch to be protocanon.

Additionally, Psalms 152 through 155, which survive in Syriac and are quite beautiful, I regard as acceptable for use as ancient hymns as they contain no false doctrine.

Ah, I see.

Thank you