Protestant canon

[Ortho_Cat]

The council of Jamnia

So a hypothetical and controversial jewish council which may or may not have happened is what the protestant OT canon is based on?

 

[SummaScriptura]

When was the Protestant canon form/formalised? And, by whom?

It never was. There is no such thing as a Protestant canon, though most will tell you the 66-book Bible is the canon.

In an informal sense, without any council publishing a list, the "Protestant Canon" is a pragmatic thing. It happens to be the 66 books all Protestants accept as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I subscribe to a broader one. I accept as canonical all the books regarded as the "Bible" by all the communions of Orthodoxy, with the exception of those books which were composed after the Apostolic era.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The OT, at least, was formalized by Jewish leaders c. 65 AD.

Great, they kill their Messiah, reject His Apostles, some of whom they kill, and we accept their ruling as to what's in our canon! Wonderful!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I only know the basics I believe our present cannon was established at the council of nicea. I heard that the first assembled group of New Testament writings was actually written down by an fellow later deemed a heretic. Marcion was his name and he left out a lot of stuff.

Athanasius Lists the New Testament Writings | Grace Communion International

Athanasius was a saint, but if you accept his NT canon, then why not accept his other teachings?

Which council of Nicea? I don't know of any Nicean council which canonized scripture. Perhaps you meant the 3rd Council of Carthage? (or the Council of Hippo before that?) If you meant the latter two, why don't you accept all the OT books canonized at those councils also?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Great, they kill their Messiah, reject His Apostles, some of whom they kill, and we accept their ruling as to what's in our canon! Wonderful!

ya, a bit problematic, no?

 

[SummaScriptura]

The septuagint isn't accepted by Protestants.

This one does.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It never was. There is no such thing as a Protestant canon, though most will tell you the 66-book Bible is the canon.

In an informal sense, without any council publishing a list, the "Protestant Canon" is a pragmatic thing. It happens to be the 66 books all Protestants accept as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I subscribe to a broader one. I accept as canonical all the books regarded as the "Bible" by all the communions of Orthodoxy, with the exception of those books which were composed after the Apostolic era.

not a bad idea.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Luther kept the Roman Apocrypha, but in a separate section between the OT and the NT.

We misplaced the Apocrypha when we gave up German for English; the only readily available translation was the Protestant KJV. Our Publishing House, Concordia, published various editions of the Apocrypha in a separate volume over the years.

When they published the "Lutheran Study Bible" in the ESV their intent was to include the Apocrypha exactly where Luther (and various Catholics) had put it; however with the notes and the reference material included for the O and NT, the Study Bible was already very cumbersome. Next year, they are yet again publishing the Apocrypha in a separate volume, with extensive reference and study notes. The ESV (without notes) is available with the Apocrypha through Oxford Press I think.

I use the NAB Catholic edition right now for my reference.

cool

 

[Montalban]

It never was. There is no such thing as a Protestant canon, though most will tell you the 66-book Bible is the canon.

In an informal sense, without any council publishing a list, the "Protestant Canon" is a pragmatic thing. It happens to be the 66 books all Protestants accept as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I subscribe to a broader one. I accept as canonical all the books regarded as the "Bible" by all the communions of Orthodoxy, with the exception of those books which were composed after the Apostolic era.

Why do you accept those books?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The Puritans removed the OT Deuteros from their published Bibles for religious reasons. In the 1800s, the American & British Bible Societies also removed them from their published editions (possibly due to cost?). This is why most American Protestants are completely unfamiliar with the Deuteros.

 

[Montalban]

This one does.

You know who the fisheaters are? Cool!

 

[Montalban]

The Puritans removed the OT Deuteros from their published Bibles for religious reasons. In the 1800s, the American & British Bible Societies also removed them from their published editions (possibly due to cost?). This is why most American Protestants are completely unfamiliar with the Deuteros.

I wonder if they think that the Holy Spirit came down and guided them to delete those books.... in the 1800s

 

[hedrick]

As several have pointed out, neither Protestant nor Catholic practice was uniform. But my reading of the history is that the use of the Hebrew canon followed the use of the Hebrew Scriptures. And that was part of the general Reformation approach of going back to the original sources. Just as they saw some Catholic errors as due to using a Latin translation instead of the original Greek NT, they would tend to use the Hebrew OT.

 

[Dorothea]

I have been reading that one of the reasons the Jews took out the Greek books of the OT that were in the Septuagint was because the Christians used mostly the Septuagint, and it was also quoted by Jesus, and hence they did not want to associate with it and took out the Greek books later. Rather than for religions reasons they did it more out of anger for the Christians and not wanting to be associated with them. Hence they felt the best way to do this was to remove the Greek books.

Yes, this is my understanding. The prophesies of Christ are much more intense in the LXX than in the Hebrew OT.

 

[Dorothea]

Great, they kill their Messiah, reject His Apostles, some of whom they kill, and we accept their ruling as to what's in our canon! Wonderful!

Yes, that's something I've never understood. Why not stick with what Christ and the Apostles read from and the Jewish Christians used?

 

[Dorothea]

This one does.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I wonder if they think that the Holy Spirit came down and guided them to delete those books.... in the 1800s

Interestingly, most Catholics, including the good Catholics at catholic.org are blissfully unaware of the existence of the deuterocanonical books and most Catholics are unaware that the Bible is divided into books.

 

[MrPolo]

But my reading of the history is that the use of the Hebrew canon followed the use of the Hebrew Scriptures.

You are saying that a text has to actually have been written in the Hebrew language to be considered Scripture? Or do you mean you are following someone else's lead on the matter?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes, that's something I've never understood. Why not stick with what Christ and the Apostles read from and the Jewish Christians used?

Actually, it was Jerome when he translated the Deuteros who commented that those particular books didn't exist in the Greek and that the Jews didnt use them. These books are called Anagignoskomena in the Greek, which means "worthy to be read". Theologically speaking, they really don't have a huge impact on doctrine.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Why do you accept those books?

I believe the oldest traditions of the Church regarding the Scriptures preserves for us a snapshot of the way things were during the Apostolic era.

To put it bluntly, the corporate witness of the communions of Orthodoxy in the world today, I believe, preserves the best picture of what was viewed as inspired Scripture by the churches in the 1st century.