Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

To be fair, at Florence the Orthodox were basically being asked to replace their canonical autocephaly and Patristic theology, and accept Papal Supremacy, the Filioque, Scholasticism, etc, for defense from the invading Turks. Although the bishops mostly went along with it, but the people, after being informed of the details of the council by St. Mark of Ephesus, chose to accept the risk of Turkocratia. I would say that decision was well worth it, for both the Orthodox and Rome, since the Orthodox have inspired Roman Catholic theologians such as Thomas Merton, as recognized by St. John Paul II in Orientale Lumen in the 20th century, and as an added spiritual benefit, the Church is strongest and most alive in the face of martyrdom and persecution.

I wonder if loss to the Turks was better, as you suggest.

 

[The Liturgist]

I wonder if loss to the Turks was better, as you suggest.

It was, since Orthodoxy survived, and with it, the doctrines of Hesychasm, Uncreated Grace, and other things which have inspired Roman Catholic theologians ranging from Robert Taft, SJ, memory eternal, to Pope Benedict XVI, even to Pope Francis, who surprisingly refrained from criticizing, and actually praised, the iconostasis (alas if only he held the same views of the Roman Rite and had not issued Traditiones Custodes and revoked Summorum Pontificum).

Also, it is a known fact that Eastern Catholic liturgies were Latinized, but were restored to their original forms in the 20th century, using Orthodox texts for reference, which would not have been possible without the Orthodox existing. And remember, the Church Fathers assert that persecution and martyrdom brings the church alive. We don’t want it, but it is a part of the Economy of Salvation, and God has used it to save many souls. Indeed the Coptic Calendar epoch is the Year of Martyrs (Today is the 9th of Hathor, 1739), dated from the start of the Diocletian Persecution. And the martyrs like Saints George, Mina and Abanoub were crowned with imperishible crowns of eternal glory.

Now if we could revert to the original topic of your thread, it would be immensely pleasing to me, because my desire is for unity and reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholics (and also high church Anglicans and other Traditional Theology churches).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now if we could revert to the original topic of your thread, it would be immensely pleasing to me, because my desire is for unity and reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholics (and also high church Anglicans and other Traditional Theology churches).

So, what is needed is a single canon for the sake of unity.

 

[Philip_B]

So, what is needed is a single canon for the sake of unity.

We probably need more that a common canon, because there is the matter of the role of scripture in determining that which is essential to the faith and that which is not. Some, not I, would argue for the historicity of every letter of the text, and then go to extraordinary lengths to reconcile the text, whilst others would recognise some untidiness in the tale and accept that as part of the story. That is probably less of a problem for OCC, EOC, RCC, and most Anglicans, however, beyond that it starts to be quite contentious in discussions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We probably need more that a common canon, because there is the matter of the role of scripture in determining that which is essential to the faith and that which is not. Some, not I, would argue for the historicity of every letter of the text, and then go to extraordinary lengths to reconcile the text, whilst others would recognise some untidiness in the tale and accept that as part of the story. That is probably less of a problem for OCC, EOC, RCC, and most Anglicans, however, beyond that it starts to be quite contentious in discussions.

Very contentious in some groups. So much so that dialogue with such is almost impossible.

 

[Erose]

So, what is needed is a single canon for the sake of unity.

I disagree on this. The reason being is that the primary driver for establishing a Bible canon in the Patriarchates was usage in the liturgy. There is no reason IMO to change that.

Modern folks seem to have fallen into (what I consider a fallacy) the idea that if a writing isn't in the Bible it isn't Divinely Inspired. But what about those writings that are specifically referred to in our Scriptures that we do not have at this moment? The NT has several passages "quoted from Scripture" that we have no idea where they came from. We don't have that writing today. The books of Kings and Chronicles refers to other writings as references. At that time would these have been considered Scripture to those Jews writing those scrolls? Something to think about.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, what is needed is a single canon for the sake of unity.

I wouldn’t say that, since there are different canons between the Roman church and the various Eastern Catholic churches, for example, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Melkites use a slightly different canon, and the Chaldeans a slightly different canon, and so on. And each of the four Oriental Orthodox liturgical traditions has its own canon.

 

[Fervent]

Are you concerned your Bible is "missing" 8 books found in the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then why should Protestants be concerned over disputed books that prior to Trent were never seen as having full canonical status, and are still recognized as being a secondary canon? There's nothing in them essential to the faith, so while they can be worth reading there's nothing really lost by their exclusion

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you concerned your Bible is "missing" 8 books found in the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then why should Protestants be concerned over disputed books that prior to Trent were never seen as having full canonical status, and are still recognized as being a secondary canon? There's nothing in them essential to the faith, so while they can be worth reading there's nothing really lost by their exclusion

Yes, at the very least I would like those Ethiopian books to be present in some part of my printed bible.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wouldn’t say that, since there are different canons between the Roman church and the various Eastern Catholic churches, for example, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Melkites use a slightly different canon, and the Chaldeans a slightly different canon, and so on. And each of the four Oriental Orthodox liturgical traditions has its own canon.

Why do you say "no"? I did not specify which canon would be the one used for unity's sake.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the 66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

you mean am i concerned i don't have added books of the bible? it says in that bible one should not add or take away, and it sounds like to get to 73 you would have to add

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

you mean am i concerned i don't have added books of the bible? it says in that bible one should not add or take away, and it sounds like to get to 73 you would have to add

well, if you look at manuscript bibles, and the first printed bibles you'll find 73 or more books. So, one needs to subtract substantial numbers of pages to get down to 66.

Besides, isn't 66 far too reminiscent of 666 for comfort.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, at the very least I would like those Ethiopian books to be present in some part of my printed bible.

I'm all for valuing every text that has been seen as authoritative among orthodox churches, but the debate over "added" books or "removed" books doesn't seem appropriate to how canonization happened. In collections there are bound to be variations, since as far as I am aware there is no Divinely Inspired Biblical index. The dispute over the Deuterocanon comes from the fact that they were not universally attested to within the Septuagint manuscripts, and they are not part of the Jewish canon. The first of these is the more damning of the two, as the Jewish canon was established as a reactive measure to the rise of Christianity among other things. Yet the fact that there is no single LXX manuscript that contains all of the Deuterocanon, let alone the Ethiopic manuscripts, caused them to be controversial. The 66 in the Protestant canon are the books that are universally attested to, so the "additional" books may still have some importance and are worth being in a Christian's library whether that is in an appendix, in the ordinary index, or even in a separate book doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Personally, I have a couple of copies of "the complete apocrypha" in various translations along with several New Testament candidates that ultimately didn't make the canon.(Shepherd, Didache, Barnabas) These are good books, but universal attestation seems a decent criterion for establishing a universal canon.

 

[Valletta]

Are you concerned your Bible is "missing" 8 books found in the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then why should Protestants be concerned over disputed books that prior to Trent were never seen as having full canonical status, and are still recognized as being a secondary canon? There's nothing in them essential to the faith, so while they can be worth reading there's nothing really lost by their exclusion

In the west all Bibles contained all 73 books, and all had full canonical status, for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped those books from their versions of the Bible.

 

[Fervent]

In the west all Bibles contained all 73 books, and all had full canonical status, for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped those books from their versions of the Bible.

No, they didn't. There was nothing particularly spectacular about Luther's canonical project, it was quite common for monks to examine the canonical issues at hand. Uniformity in manuscripts really didn't become a thing(or an issue) until after the invention of the printing press, Your claim is typical Catholic revisionist history, rather than reflective of the actual situation at hand.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

well, if you look at manuscript bibles, and the first printed bibles you'll find 73 or more books. So, one needs to subtract substantial numbers of pages to get down to 66.

Besides, isn't 66 far too reminiscent of 666 for comfort.

that's an odd correlation, next people will say 12 disciples is a multiple of 6 and therefor bad, don't look for bad where there is none. As far as the books the practice of adding to the bible has been going on for years it is no surprise there are old accounts of this being done, the age of a practice or religion doesn't make it right, the truth of it does.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, they didn't. There was nothing particularly spectacular about Luther's canonical project, it was quite common for monks to examine the canonical issues at hand. Uniformity in manuscripts really didn't become a thing(or an issue) until after the invention of the printing press, Your claim is typical Catholic revisionist history, rather than reflective of the actual situation at hand.

Can you link me to a source establishing a significant number of Christian-produced Latin manuscripts with the 66 book canon predating 1300 AD?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

they are not part of the Jewish canon.

This one, that is to say, not being in the canon of Rabbinic Judaism, is the main argument to which Protestant apologists appeal.

The dispute over the Deuterocanon comes from the fact that they were not universally attested to within the Septuagint manuscripts, and they are not part of the Jewish canon. The first of these is the more damning of the two, as the Jewish canon was established as a reactive measure to the rise of Christianity among other things. Yet the fact that there is no single LXX manuscript that contains all of the Deuterocanon, let alone the Ethiopic manuscripts, caused them to be controversial.

If you're thinking of LXX manuscripts from very early times your claim could be argued, but it would be argued from a lack of manuscripts rather than from well attested and numerous manuscripts showing wide variation in the content of the complete "bible". However, when large numbers of manuscripts of the complete bible are considered - and these are not from the first to fourth centuries or earlier - then the seven books accepted by Catholics are frequently, perhaps universally, present.

"There are only four manuscripts that originally contained the whole Bible in Greek surviving from antiquity. Two of them may be viewed side by side in the British Library Sir John Ritblatt Treasures Gallery. Making a complete copy of a collection of writings as large as the Bible depended upon technology which only became available in the 4th century. Until then the Bible only seems to have been available in volumes containing one or a few books. The copies described here are fascinating individually, and together, they tell the story of the emergence of the Christian Bible as a book. ..." (source)​

From the same source

"Possibly the oldest complete Bible, certainly the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus was copied in the middle of the 4th century. It originally contained the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the 48 books of the Christian Old Testament and Apocrypha), the 27 books of the New Testament, and two more early Christian writings, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas."​

In later centuries Latin manuscripts come to the fore in the west. And by the time printing was first used for mass production of books the 73 books (and more in some editions) were in the printed editions in Latin. Gutenberg's printed bible is well attested, and it has at least 73 books in it. A PDF of a Gutenberg bible is available here.

So, it is far more accurate to say that the best attested old* 'canon' as evidenced by written bibles that are still available is of at least 73 books.

* By "old" I mean either manuscript or early pre-protestant-revolt complete bibles. And by "complete bibles" I mean bibles that do not have missing pages that are known to be missing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As far as the books the practice of adding to the bible has been going on for years it is no surprise there are old accounts of this being done, the age of a practice or religion doesn't make it right, the truth of it does.

Your post is arguing for a pre-determined 66 book canon isn't it, really, rather than arguing from the evidence to a conclusion. I've searched for PDF copies of bibles whose source document is either ancient or at least pre-protestant-revolt in time and I have not found any 66 book bibles from those times. I doubt that any such bibles existed.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Your post is arguing for a pre-determined 66 book canon isn't it, really, rather than arguing from the evidence to a conclusion. I've searched for PDF copies of bibles whose source document is either ancient or at least pre-protestant-revolt in time and I have not found any 66 book bibles from those times. I doubt that any such bibles existed.

how could something exist before it's existence? Are you saying that because there were no 66 books in the bible before all 66 books were written then you do not believe there should be that many books? How much more then should you not believe in a 73 book bible. I don't see the logic. Jesus knew how many books would ultimately be in the bible, i won't argue that. But you also can't argue against Revelation 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll." Be careful to believe added words of the bible, they are not meant to be added. We could go into detail on the parts that contradict what the actual 66 books say, but to disregard them solely on the basis that you don't like the number 6 is a dangerous way to live life, maybe throw away every 6th apple you buy, ignore the 6th disciple's writing, ignore the 6th chapter of Matthew etc. Don't get me wrong i hate 6 as much as the next guy and love 7. When solomon built the temple there were 6 lions leading up to the throne on each side of the steps, would God completely disapprove of this structure? (1 Kings 10:19) by all means no God instead approved his building.