Missing pages from one's bible

[Fervent]

There is a lot wrong is this post and not sure where really to start. In the West without a doubt the canon was set in the 4th century, as the lists of books in the canon are the same today as they were then. And we have lists given throughout the history of the Catholic Church that coincide with the canon of the Synod in Rome in the 4th century and the canon of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. So I would say that yes it was closed. 2) All books of the Bible are used for liturgical purposes, then as well as today. There are solid arguments that canonicity of the books found in the Bible were based primarily liturgical usage. 3) The Protestants rejected the authority of the Western Church and not the Eastern Church, so what additional writings they accept in their canon doesn’t matter to this debate.

The fact remains that no one knows specifically why Protestants moved away from the Christian Canon to the Jewish one. The best explanation I found was that the publishers of the KJV Bible removed them to save money on publishing, and voila Protestant bible minus the 7 books.

Clearly your sources for history are Catholic, as there is no mystery to why the books were moved away from and it wasn't to move to the Jewish canon but had everything to do with the manuscripts of the LXX and the testimonies of the early church beginning with Tertullian. As I said, whether the East has more or less books their canon being different shows that canonical issues continued past the 4th century as if the canon was closed in the 4th century the East and West would have identical canons since they were still in full communion with little drift until the 6th century, and communion didn't break entirely until the millenium. There certainly were claimants forwarding a 73 book canon, but it wasn't universally recognized and canonical criticism was seen as ordinary scholarship when Luther moved the books to the appendix. As I noted elsewhere even Cajetan engaged in canonical criticism, which if the revisionist claim to a closed canon prior to Trent were true would have been unthinkable.

The 73 book canon depends not on a historical analysis of how and when books became canonized, but purely on the authority claim of the Roman church. So asking whether the disagreement between the Roman Bibles and Protestant Bibles bothers those of us with a 66 book canon is little more than an appeal to accept the authority of Rome, and as with other appeals to Roman authority relies on revisionist history.

 

[ozso]

There is a lot wrong is this post and not sure where really to start. In the West without a doubt the canon was set in the 4th century, as the lists of books in the canon are the same today as they were then. And we have lists given throughout the history of the Catholic Church that coincide with the canon of the Synod in Rome in the 4th century and the canon of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. So I would say that yes it was closed. 2) All books of the Bible are used for liturgical purposes, then as well as today. There are solid arguments that canonicity of the books found in the Bible were based primarily liturgical usage. 3) The Protestants rejected the authority of the Western Church and not the Eastern Church, so what additional writings they accept in their canon doesn’t matter to this debate.

The fact remains that no one knows specifically why Protestants moved away from the Christian Canon to the Jewish one. The best explanation I found was that the publishers of the KJV Bible removed them to save money on publishing, and voila Protestant bible minus the 7 books.

Protestantism in general views scripture as infallible. Whereas the apocrypha was deemed as fallible and still is by the most part of Protestantism. That doesn't automatically mean that what's written is rejected as false or of no value. But rather just that it isn't accepted by them as being the infallible Holy Word of God.

I find the prophecy contained in Wisdom 2:12-21 quite astonishing. And I don't see any reason Protestants would have for omitting it. Except probably that the book as a whole doesn't hold up to their scrutiny.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh I see you were being facetious or sarcastic or something like that.

I do hope that I am not misunderstanding your comments, but at the risk of sounding a little condescending let me observe these things,
When I wrote:

Christians use words when talking to people who reject scripture. What's the point of citations from scripture. Just use what is taught in scripture and drop all that "Matthew 10:17" stuff! Just say "Watch out, for there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will punish you."​

I used the word "citation" to mean "give a reference for a bible passage" rather than quoting a bible passage (without necessarily giving chapter and verse). Thus, one uses words without citations, or quotes/paraphrases without citing the source, and as an example I cited Matthew 10:17 then quoted it noting that in conversation one might quote without giving a reference.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Protestantism in general views scripture as infallible.

No, that is not so. Many major Protestant denominations do not regard holy scripture as infallible nor as inerrant. It is conservative evangelicals and some Pentecostals who say they support the infallibility (or inerrancy) of scripture (meaning only 66 boo0ks, of course).

 

[ozso]

No, that is not so. Many major Protestant denominations do not regard holy scripture as infallible nor as inerrant. It is conservative evangelicals and some Pentecostals who say they support the infallibility (or inerrancy) of scripture (meaning only 66 boo0ks, of course).

I should have said mainstream Protestants as opposed to mainline Protestants.

 

[ozso]

I do hope that I am not misunderstanding your comments, but at the risk of sounding a little condescending let me observe these things,
When I wrote:

Christians use words when talking to people who reject scripture. What's the point of citations from scripture. Just use what is taught in scripture and drop all that "Matthew 10:17" stuff! Just say "Watch out, for there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will punish you."​

I used the word "citation" to mean "give a reference for a bible passage" rather than quoting a bible passage (without necessarily giving chapter and verse). Thus, one uses words without citations, or quotes/paraphrases without citing the source, and as an example I cited Matthew 10:17 then quoted it noting that in conversation one might quote without giving a reference.

It's the "No no no!!!!" part at the beginning that threw me off. If I had seen that you're from Australia it might have registered better. But I was on my phone at work posting on the fly. From now on I'll just read you the same as other inhabitants of Oz I know who use that style.

That said. I disagree with you when it comes to citing scripture references to those outside of Christianity. For one thing they might end up picking up a Bible to verify what was cited, and keep reading.

 

[Vanellus]

Luturgist.

Despite your "I have to object to this statement", it is clear you agree with it.
I wrote "It's a mistake to think the so-called Catholic church has only had one view of the matter." - the matter being the status of the Apocrypha (Maccabees, Sirach etc.) wrt the Bible.
You then describe Athanasius as an important catholic. Later you wrote that "Whereas the view of St. Athanasius on the New Testament is authoritative, his view of the Old Testament was not accepted." Here you are saying there was an important difference of opinion within the Catholic church.

And where is our disagreement here: "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"

It seems to me that you are looking for a disagreement when there isn't one.

 

[Vanellus]

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.

This agrees with my statement that there were different views on the canon within the Catholic church. Elsewhere in this thread it has been shown that there was no one agreed conciliar view until the Council of Trent whose purpose was to counter the Reformation. it's hardly surprising it took a different view from the Reformers.

 

[Erose]

Clearly your sources for history are Catholic, as there is no mystery to why the books were moved away from and it wasn't to move to the Jewish canon but had everything to do with the manuscripts of the LXX and the testimonies of the early church beginning with Tertullian. As I said, whether the East has more or less books their canon being different shows that canonical issues continued past the 4th century as if the canon was closed in the 4th century the East and West would have identical canons since they were still in full communion with little drift until the 6th century, and communion didn't break entirely until the millenium. There certainly were claimants forwarding a 73 book canon, but it wasn't universally recognized and canonical criticism was seen as ordinary scholarship when Luther moved the books to the appendix. As I noted elsewhere even Cajetan engaged in canonical criticism, which if the revisionist claim to a closed canon prior to Trent were true would have been unthinkable.

The 73 book canon depends not on a historical analysis of how and when books became canonized, but purely on the authority claim of the Roman church. So asking whether the disagreement between the Roman Bibles and Protestant Bibles bothers those of us with a 66 book canon is little more than an appeal to accept the authority of Rome, and as with other appeals to Roman authority relies on revisionist history.

My question is why do you trust the Catholic Church concerning the New Testament; but you trust the Jews of the 5th to 9th century concerning the OT over Christians?

 

[Erose]

Protestantism in general views scripture as infallible. Whereas the apocrypha was deemed as fallible and still is by the most part of Protestantism. That doesn't automatically mean that what's written is rejected as false or of no value. But rather just that it isn't accepted by them as being the infallible Holy Word of God.

I find the prophecy contained in Wisdom 2:12-21 quite astonishing. And I don't see any reason Protestants would have for omitting it. Except probably that the book as a whole doesn't hold up to their scrutiny.

Who in Protestantism determined those books as fallible? Who where the Protestants, that determined which writings were fallible and infallible? That the the holy grail here is it not?

 

[Fervent]

My question is why do you trust the Catholic Church concerning the New Testament; but you trust the Jews of the 5th to 9th century concerning the OT over Christians?

Your question rests on a faulty premise, as I don't trust the Catholic Church concerning the New Testament, nor is my position on the OT based on the Masoretes. The questions regarding the 7 texts begins with the LXX indices, and continues through the conversation of the earliest compilers. The Masoretic rejection of those texts is coincidental to the issue, and is something of a Catholic boogeyman.

 

[Erose]

This agrees with my statement that there were different views on the canon within the Catholic church. Elsewhere in this thread it has been shown that there was no one agreed conciliar view until the Council of Trent whose purpose was to counter the Reformation. it's hardly surprising it took a different view from the Reformers.

The problem with this assessment is that the matter was settled way before Trent in the West and for the most part in the East. Here is the situation that most don’t understand or know. In the 4th Century you had 4 major Patriarchates: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria & Jerusalem. Each of these Patriarchates had their own liturgies and little “t” traditions. Prior to the 4th century there was differing collections of religious writings that were read during the Divine Liturgies (or Masses). Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch all had smaller table of contents in their Bibles than Rome did.

Historically the origin of the question what is and is not Sacred Scripture really started in Rome and the Latin Churches in Egypt, especially at the synods of Carthage, several of which were presided over by St. Augustine. At the synod of Hippo, which is considered one of those synods, St. Augustine followed the Roman canon. At the synod of Trullo the rest of the Eastern Patriarchates accepted the canons of the synods of Carthage, including the Roman Bible canon. The exceptions being those churches already out of communion with Rome such as the Churches of the East and the Jacobite Churches. Also Ethiopia is an exception because of their isolation.

Here is the difference: In the West, the matter was closed, and the Western Church used only those writings in our liturgies. But in the East there was still usage of readings from some of the other writings found in the LXX still used in either their Divine Liturgies or their Holy Offices, and thus these writings were included in their codexes. This is how it all worked.

Now during the same period of time it seems the 4th and 5th century the Jewish Rabbis were asking the same questions. For the most part theirs was already set following the Pharisees, but there were some that were still being questioned and debated such as Ruth, Esther, Judith, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Jubilees (off the top of my head). Somewhere between the 4th and 9th century AD their canon became fixed, and accepted by it seems all Jews. Oddly enough today, what we call the OT is not considered their only Sacred Writings.

Anyway to close this off, the canon of Bible Scripture accepted at the Synods of Rome and Hippo, is the same as that which is listed as a requirement for unity with the Church of Rome at the council of Florence and then reaffirmed in contrast to the Protestants rejection of the Christian Bible.

 

[Erose]

Your question rests on a faulty premise, as I don't trust the Catholic Church concerning the New Testament, nor is my position on the OT based on the Masoretes. The questions regarding the 7 texts begins with the LXX indices, and continues through the conversation of the earliest compilers. The Masoretic rejection of those texts is coincidental to the issue, and is something of a Catholic boogeyman.

So you reject the Christian Bible because of … what then?

 

[Fervent]

So you reject the Christian Bible because of … what then?

I don't "reject the Christian Bible." I hold a silent opinion on the Deuterocanon, neither affirming them as Scripture nor denying them as such, because they are not universally attested to either in the manuscript record of the Septuagint, nor in the early compilers, nor in the history of the church prior to Trent. I find them useful for establishing historical context, but see little unique contribution from them to the larger narrative of the Bible. As I see it, the drama of Israel necessary for the advent is complete when it is clear that the temple is no longer the dwelling place of God in Ezra and Nehemiah.

So the only thing of relevance I reject is the authority of the Roman institution, including the declaration at Trent. The canon does not derive its authority from the declaration of men, what limited authority men possess comes from the canon and their fidelity to it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

it has been shown that there was no one agreed conciliar view until the Council of Trent

The Ecumenical council of Florence ratified the canon of scripture that was first defined by councils in Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Masoretic rejection of those texts is coincidental to the issue, and is something of a Catholic boogeyman.

So, why do Protestants reject the Old Testament canon that Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the LXX accept?

 

[ozso]

Who in Protestantism determined those books as fallible? Who where the Protestants, that determined which writings were fallible and infallible? That the the holy grail here is it not?

The ones who were Catholic.

 

[ozso]

So, why do Protestants reject the Old Testament canon that Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the LXX accept?

"It's a mystery "

 

[Fervent]

So, why do Protestants reject the Old Testament canon that Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the LXX accept?

As I mentioned already, the claim that "the LXX accept" those texts is not accurate. Why did Jerome question the canonicity of those texts? The reason is the same, they do not all appear universally within LXX manuscripts, there is no single manuscript of the LXX that contains them all, and every combination of them The issue lies entirely with the LXX.

 

[Valletta]

This agrees with my statement that there were different views on the canon within the Catholic church. Elsewhere in this thread it has been shown that there was no one agreed conciliar view until the Council of Trent whose purpose was to counter the Reformation. it's hardly surprising it took a different view from the Reformers.

The canon was settled by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. Jerome, who was involved in translating the Bible into Latin during those times, dutifully noted, as any good researcher should, that some Jews of the day had a different OT canon. Today we call this a footnote, but Jerome received criticism for his words. In 402 A.D. Jerome responded to the critics to clarify:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. You can see that the books dropped by Protestants have been part of the Bible for a long time: