Missing pages from one's bible

[The Liturgist]

It's a mistake to think the so-called Catholic church has only had one view of the matter. Neither Jerome nor Athaasius regarded the so-called Apocrypha as canonical. They were read for edification but not for establishing doctrine.

I have to object to this statement. All Nicene Christians follow the doctrine of St. Athanasius: he was of crucial importance in anathematizing Arius at the Council of Nicaea and in the drafting of the Nicene Creed, for which he then endured persecution for decades when Emperor Constantine’s son Constantius, and every subsequent Emperor until Theodosius, except Julian, were Arians, and persecuted Christians. St. Athanasius also was the first to publish the definitive New Testament canon of 27 books, which as far as we know he originated, since no earlier proposed canon is precisely identical or was enforced in an entire Patriarchate as St. Athanasius did in Paschal Encyclical 39.

Furthermore, since St. Athanasius was Pope of the Church of Alexandria, and thus the predecessor of both His Beatitude Theodore II the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, and His Holiness Tawadros II the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, and since the 73 book canon is, with only slight variations, shared by the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox, and some Oriental Orthodox, for example the Ethiopians, have even broader canons, and since Anglicanism has always used the Apocrypha (which is why it was included in the KJV, and should be in every copy, except publishers want to cut costs and avoid irritating non-Anglicans, but hopefully as more low church Protestants move to the ESV, NIV and other modern language Bibles, the majority of KJVs might be printed with all of the original contents once more) this cannot be characterized as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue.

from http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html#:~:text=The Scriptural Canon of Athanasius corresponds with that,is not mentioned by the Council of Laodicea.

This idea, that the Jewish view on the canon of the Hebrew Bible should be rejected as irrelevant to Christians, in the same manner as the Muslim view on the Koran - is absolute nonsense and goes against the nature of the relationship between the two testaments, and between Christianity and Judaism.

Whereas the view of St. Athanasius on the New Testament is authoritative, his view of the Old Testament was not accepted. For example, he excluded from the protocanon Esther, which in both the shorter and the superior long forms is accepted elsewhere (although Luther wanted to delete it along with the Antilegomenna). He also includes Baruch as protocanon, like John Calvin.

Furthermore, of the list of books which St. Athanasius mentions, he commends them for reading by neophytes for instruction in godliness. This is similiar to the historical Anglican view on the apocrypha in Article VI of the Articles of Religion.

Thus, St. Athanasius actually presents a good argument for these books being included in the Bible, and his view on the Old Testament can be seen as a step towards the finalization of the OT canon by the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, and most importantly, the Eastern Churches of which he was the most respected leader among the persecuted Nicene faction in the fourth century, to the extent that St. Gregory the Theologian wrote a panegyric of St. Athanasius, in which he declared the name Athanasius to be synonymous with virtue.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

His name was Cajetan, have you heard of him?

This claim - That Cardinal Cajetan was in agreement with Martin Luther in removing 7 books from the Old Testament and parts of two more - is really a shibboleth among Protestant apologists but it is not what you claim here. Besides, you have not produced a Bible, either a manuscript or a printed edition from before Martin Luther's 1517 AD rise to fame, that contains only 66 books like current Protestant bibles do.

"Thomas Cajetan (/ˈkædʒətən/; 20 February 1469 – 9 August 1534), also known as Gaetanus, commonly Tommaso de Vio or Thomas de Vio,[2] was an Italian philosopher, theologian, cardinal (from 1517 until his death) and the Master of the Order of Preachers 1508 to 1518. He was a leading theologian of his day who is now best known as the spokesman for Catholic opposition to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation while he was the Pope's Legate in Augsburg, and among Catholics for his extensive commentary on the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.[3]"

 

[The Liturgist]

Saints Jerome and Athanasius had opinions about books in the LXX, their opinions were not the same. Their opinions were not the teaching of the Catholic Church of their day - in their lifetime there was just one Church and it called itself the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine, who was contemporary with Saint Jerome, held to 73 books as canonical (73 when Baruch and Jeremiah are counted separately) and he also had Esther and Daniel in the form that Catholics today read and accept as canonical. The councils at Hippo (where Saint Augustine was bishop), and three at Carthage, and one in Rome all endorsed the 73 books that Catholics today accept as canonical. The council of Florence also ratified the canon it received from Hippo/Carthage/Rome, Trent ratified the same canon, Vatican II ratified it also. So, there is a very long history, stretching from 397 AD until 1965 AD where the Catholic Church has ratified a 73-book canon.

Indeed there was one Catholic Orthodox church at that time, because the disastrous schisms such as the Nestorian schism, the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism of 1054, which was cemented by the Fourh Crusade in which Venice attacked and critically weakened the Byzantine Empire, virtually ensuring its conquest by the Turks, had not yet happened. Nonetheless, the 39th Encyclical of St. Athanasius was authoritative within the Patriarch of Alexandria, of which St. Athanasius was Pope, being primus inter pares of the Holy Synod and sufficiently respected so that his encyclicals were upheld throughout the entire Egyptian church and not just in his Patriarchal See (since in the ancient church, and to this day in the Orthodox church, all bishops have the same authority).

 

[Fervent]

This claim - That Cardinal Cajetan was in agreement with Martin Luther in removing 7 books from the Old Testament and parts of two more - is really a shibboleth among Protestant apologists but it is not what you claim here. Besides, you have not produced a Bible, either a manuscript or a printed edition from before Martin Luther's 1517 AD rise to fame, that contains only 66 books like current Protestant bibles do.

"Thomas Cajetan (/ˈkædʒətən/; 20 February 1469 – 9 August 1534), also known as Gaetanus, commonly Tommaso de Vio or Thomas de Vio,[2] was an Italian philosopher, theologian, cardinal (from 1517 until his death) and the Master of the Order of Preachers 1508 to 1518. He was a leading theologian of his day who is now best known as the spokesman for Catholic opposition to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation while he was the Pope's Legate in Augsburg, and among Catholics for his extensive commentary on the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.[3]"

I'm not sure where you got the impression I claimed that prior to Luther there existed manuscripts with only 66 books, as I don't believe I said any such thing. I certainly am not aware of any manuscript with exactly 66 books, instead making note that Luther's project in moving the books to the appendix was a critical project where he preserved the 66 books that were essentially universally attested to from Tertullian onward and that canonical criticism was seen as an ordinary part of theological scholarship prior to Trent.

I'd also note you seem to have modified what I said about Cajetan, as I didn't say anything as strong as him being in agreement with Luther's canon simply used him as an example of the ordinary nature of canonical criticism prior to the reformation. Your statement is also not accurate as Luther did not remove(nor did he advocate removing) any books from the Bible, simply moved them to an appendix. Their exclusion came after they had fallen into complete disuse among Protestants in the 18th century, and there's really nothing lost from the exclusion.

Your OP seems to imply that there is a divine index, and that index is the 73 books and any Bible with less is incomplete. I see no reason to accept such a claim, and am not troubled by the exclusion of books that have been disputed throughout Christian history. The 66 common and agreed upon books are more than sufficient, and even after having read the excluded material I find no substantial gain from them worthy of fretting over. They have historical interest giving details of the Hasmodian period but that period doesn't seem to be integral to the Biblical narrative as a whole.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the 66 books that were essentially universally attested to from Tertullian onward

There were more than 66 books that were "essentially universally" attested among Christians.

"66 books" is a Protestant thing, a fixation, a number looked for by Protestant apologists.

The LXX plus New Testament, was what early Christians used. LXX gave them at least 46 Old Testament books.

 

[Fervent]

There were more than 66 books that were "essentially universally" attested among Christians.

"66 books" is a Protestant thing, a fixation, a number looked for by Protestant apologists.

The LXX plus New Testament, was what early Christians used. LXX gave them at least 46 Old Testament books.

It's not a Protestant thing, and I'd like to point out that you're the one who asked the question fixating on a number of books. The trouble with saying "the LXX"(and a large part of the issue regarding the 7 excluded books) is that there was no unified index for the LXX, and no single LXX index contained all 7 of the books in dispute as well as every index containing books that are excluded. Your question asked those of us who have Bibles with 66 books if we're troubled by the "missing" books, I told you why I'm not. Not only because of the historical disputes surrounding these books but also because the period of time that most of them cover is superfluous to the covenental story. The drama of Israel is essentially complete when they return from the exile and God's spirit does not descend on the second temple, the Hasmodian period adds little to the narrative as a whole and so I see no essential need for their inclusion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the period of time that most of them cover is superfluous to the covenental story. The drama of Israel is essentially complete when they return from the exile and God's spirit does not descend on the second temple, the Hasmodian period adds little to the narrative as a whole and so I see no essential need for their inclusion.

This claim is, of course, a nonsense. Israel's story was still in its middle when the books we're discussing were written. Israel's story was still being told when the Lord, Jesus Christ, was born. In truth Israel's story is not yet over, but for a time it is eclipsed.

 

[Fervent]

This claim is, of course, a nonsense. Israel's story was still in its middle when the books we're discussing were written. Israel's story was still being told when the Lord, Jesus Christ, was born. In truth Israel's story is not yet over, but for a time it is eclipsed.

The Hasmodian period adds nothing to the story of the two covenants, the elements necessary for the advent and giving of the New Covenant require nothing from the intertestimonial period. So while there was still national history the overall narrative of the Bible is complete without the Hasmodian's history. The only thing that might be considered an addition is Purim, and last time I checked that wasn't a widely recognized Christian holiday.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Hasmodian period adds nothing to the story of the two covenants, the elements necessary for the advent and giving of the New Covenant require nothing from the intertestimonial period.

These terms are Protestant at heart. "Intertestamental period" is a fiction, the Old Testament was still being written not many decades before Christ was born. And the prophetic office was still occupied when Christ was born so prophetic revelation was given through John the Baptist, Anna the prophetess, and Simon who received a word of revelation from God that he would live to see the salvation of Israel. It is a nonsense to claim that there was an "intertestamental period" in which no additional scripture was written.

 

[ozso]

I can't recall ever seeing Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Parts of Esther, Parts of Daniel used as a reference in a discussion or presentation by a Catholic. I've read many posts and articles written by Catholics, here and elsewhere, and have never seen it. So this is another reason why they seem in a separate category from the rest of the Bible. My guess those books are the ones most Catholics are the least familiar with.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can't recall ever seeing Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Parts of Esther, Parts of Daniel used as a reference in a discussion or presentation by a Catholic.

I used 2 Maccabees a day or two ago. Maybe you didn't read my post.

 

[ozso]

I used 2 Maccabees a day or two ago. Maybe you didn't read my post.

So once in over 1000 posts.

 

[ozso]

These terms are Protestant at heart. "Intertestamental period" is a fiction, the Old Testament was still being written not many decades before Christ was born. And the prophetic office was still occupied when Christ was born so prophetic revelation was given through John the Baptist, Anna the prophetess, and Simon who received a word of revelation from God that he would live to see the salvation of Israel. It is a nonsense to claim that there was an "intertestamental period" in which no additional scripture was written.

Lots of scripture has been written, well beyond the seven books you brought up.

Bel and the Dragon, the Psalms of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, 2nd Baruch, 3rd and 4th Maccabees to name a few.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So once in over 1000 posts.

No, I've used other passages from Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and from Tobit. I frequently use the canonical scriptures in my posts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Bel and the Dragon

Bel & the Dragon is part of Daniel. The other books were not included in the canonical scriptures by the Catholic Church in the 4th century AD nor at any time later.

 

[ozso]

Bel & the Dragon is part of Daniel. The other books were not included in the canonical scriptures by the Catholic Church in the 4th century AD nor at any time later.

Why not?

 

[ozso]

No, I've used other passages from Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and from Tobit. I frequently use the canonical scriptures in my posts.

What about most other Catholics?

 

[Erose]

here are some verses other than on revalation confirming you should not add to or take away from scripture
View attachment 323788

And again each one of those passages are speaking of a specific thing. The passage from book of Revelation specifically says “this book”. The passages from Dt refer to the Mosaic Law. The only one that you may make an argument for is the one in Proverbs; but it is pretty easy to see that it is referring to the word of God as being what is taught by God. Don’t add anything man-made to it. But then in that case that is more against groups like the Protestants who changed the word (teachings of God) to fit their world views.

 

[Erose]

If it were true the canon was set from the 4th century, the Roman Catholic Church would have the exact same canon as the Eastern Orthodox. The idea that the canon was set since the 4th century is revisionist history that picked out a couple of local councils creating a canon for their liturgical calendar and claiming that it was a universal canon being set, but looking to Bible manuscripts that exist it becomes clear that there wasn't a fixed canon since most indexes vary in their inclusions. If the canon was set, there wouldn't have been continued scholarship on canonical questions which were matter of course. Trent's official declaration of a universal canon is what closed the door to such scholarship among Catholics, and the printing press making it easy for a single version to easily be reproduced and widely distributed made it unnecessary among Protestants.

Here is the thing. The EO Church accepts every single book that the Catholic Church accepts. The only difference is that the EO does use other writings such as the Prayer of Manasseh and Ps 151, some Patriarchates use 3rd Maccabee’s as well; but if you dig into their understanding of these writings and why they are used, there is a reason; but I don’t speak for them so I won’t.

As for authority, I hardly think I need a human being to confirm for me what God reveals and will have no intermediary in such a role. I am just as capable of investigating the historical record and weighing the issues at hand without a human being declaring for me that such is true. Especially an authority that has the track record of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yeah, that is what I found to. Most of Protestant denominations rejected the Christian canon for the Jewish one, and no one has a clue how it happened. It just happened. One of the great mysteries of Protestant history.

 

[ozso]

And again each one of those passages are speaking of a specific thing. The passage from book of Revelation specifically says “this book”. The passages from Dt refer to the Mosaic Law. The only one that you may make an argument for is the one in Proverbs; but it is pretty easy to see that it is referring to the word of God as being what is taught by God. Don’t add anything man-made to it. But then in that case that is more against groups like the Protestants who changed the word (teachings of God) to fit their world views.

The Protestant reformation and Sola Scriptura took place because of the changing of the word to fit world views.