Protestant canon

[The Templar]

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.

The Puritans read and studied the Geneva Bible of 1560-1599, which contains the Apocrypha. These books were, as you have said, taken out by British and American Bible Societies. And yes, it was to save printing cost! The claim was that "so few Pastors ever preached a sermon based upon the books of the Apocrypha" they were no longer needed!
So, when was the last time anyone preached out of Philemon?
Do you think...nah. That would never happen today, right?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thanks Rev Butler on the Puritans. I had been under the impression that they had removed the Deuteros out of their printings of the Bible.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Well, Lutherans really aren't all that Protestant.

Technically, the Lutherans are the ONLY Protestants. They protested the Diet of Speyer of 1529.

Although I love my EO home, I still find myself singing from The Lutheran Hymnal at times for those hymns I grew up with.

Christos Anesti

 

[Montalban]

Thanks Rev Butler on the Puritans. I had been under the impression that they had removed the Deuteros out of their printings of the Bible.

They must have considered those books non-essential

 

[Montalban]

The Protestant Canon?

In 1604 King James I authorized translators to provide a translation of Scripture. God himself dictated the English woerds and canon to the translators. The work was completed in 1611, and has been revised several times since, but the canon has not changed.

That's the story I've been told and I'm sticking to it.

Translations aren't canons.

Why do you think King James I of England (aka James VI of Scotland) was vested by the Holy Spirit in doing this?

 

[mark46]

Was my sarcasm completely lost?

There is no canon for all Protestants. To the extent that there is one, it contains the 66 books of Scripture as determined by the continuing Tradition of the refomation churches.

It was not until the fundamentalists that this became such a crucial issue for so many. But then when you worship a set of books, it is a good idea to define what exactly is included.

Translations aren't canons.

The contents of Scripture have not changed since the beginning. Yes, there is a bit of variation among apostolic churches, but not much. But, yes, for convenience and to save printing costs, many Protestants have limiote the Word of God to 66 books. As another poster indicated, will Philemon be the next to go?

Why do you think King James I of England (aka James VI of Scotland) was vested by the Holy Spirit in doing this?

 

[Thekla]

Was my sarcasm completely lost?

... well, it is 'puter-land

(I'm lost here half the time without faces and intonation ...)

 

[mark46]

1) This is a strange idea.

2) However, perhaps their tradition is a bit longer than yours. After all, scripture wasn't written in chapter and books.

3) Catholics tend to be blissfully aware of books that are not part of their canon. That seems a reasonable position. Appendices seem like a silly idea (yup we Anglicans use that silly apporach). Catholics will qoute from Sirach and Wisdom and 2nd Macabbees as much as from Esther and Philemon. This also seems a reasonable approach.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

Nicea didn't have anything to do with the biblical canon, actually. It wasn't discussed at the council at all.

-CryptoLutheran

That's what I had been thinking, but before Nicea, there was...

Google 50 bibles Constantine

 

[Standing Up]

That's what I don't understand. Which is why I asked about earlier canons, such as Marcions. What makes this Athansius collection 'the' canon?

IIRC, they rejected Marcion's not necessarily just because he 'shrunk' the #of books, but because his teaching didn't line up and wasn't linked to an apostle. So, when he said X that was false and then said 'only Luke/Paul is valid, they rejected him.

 

[Standing Up]

Paul said the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul studied under Gamaliel. Which books would Paul be referencing? Maybe this will help shed some light.

Chapter LXVIII.—The Rule of Faith.
“These sayings of Gamaliel did not much please Caiaphas; and holding him in suspicion, as it seemed, he began to insinuate himself cunningly into the discussions: for, smiling at what Gamaliel had said, the chief of the priests asked of James, the chief of the bishops,594594 [This title is consistent with the position accorded to James the Lord’s brother in the entire pseudo-Clementine literature.—R.] that the discourse concerning Christ should not be drawn but from the Scriptures; ‘that we may know,’ said he, ‘whether Jesus be the very Christ or no.’ Then said James, ‘We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to derive our discussion.’ Then he, with difficulty, at length overcome by reason, answered, that it must be derived from the law; and afterwards he made mention also of the prophets.”
ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Yarddog]

The council of Jamnia

The Hebrew canon was not set in 65 AD. Jabneh(Jamnia) became the place where the Sanhedrin met "after" the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 AD. It was then that they began to work on fixing their canon and this was not completed until 132 AD, according to Jewish sites. Jews in Alexandria were using the Septuagint, though, and continued to use it for some time.

 

[Standing Up]

So, is it odd that the LXX (septuagent) was first translated c300bc, yet the deteros were all written after that?


As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[10] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.
wiki-

 

[Yarddog]

So, is it odd that the LXX (septuagent) was first translated c300bc, yet the deteros were all written after that?

According to the original request by Ptolemy II , only the Torah was translated c. 250 BC. That means that all of the other books were translated after that.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

According to the original request by Ptolemy II , only the Torah was translated c. 250 BC. That means that all of the other books were translated after that.

And the Septuagint wasn't fully translated until after 150BC.

 

[Montalban]

IIRC, they rejected Marcion's not necessarily just because he 'shrunk' the #of books, but because his teaching didn't line up and wasn't linked to an apostle. So, when he said X that was false and then said 'only Luke/Paul is valid, they rejected him.

Who's 'they'? I believe I've asked you many times who compiled the canon.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but...

The King James 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

It was removed in about 1830.

Technically, the Lutherans are the ONLY Protestants. They protested the Diet of Speyer of 1529.

Although I love my EO home, I still find myself singing from The Lutheran Hymnal at times for those hymns I grew up with.

Christos Anesti

Diet of Speyer aside, the hymns of the Confessional Lutheran tradition are very "orthodox" and "catholic" in nature. It is no coincidence that while the RCC views Lutherans as heretical and heterodox, they have adopted many "Lutheran Hymns", which are included in their various service books. Likewise, Confessional Lutheran hymnals include translations of many Latin hymns form the RCC tradition... likewise, our Lutheran Mass and the RCC Mass are, but for a few subtle doctrinal differences, identical.

Also, in the rubrics and lectionairy, a number of the Antiphons used in the Introit are taken from the Apocrypha (in Advent, and the Daily Office.

1) This is a strange idea.

2) However, perhaps their tradition is a bit longer than yours. After all, scripture wasn't written in chapter and books.

3) Catholics tend to be blissfully aware of books that are not part of their canon. That seems a reasonable position. Appendices seem like a silly idea (yup we Anglicans use that silly apporach). Catholics will qoute from Sirach and Wisdom and 2nd Macabbees as much as from Esther and Philemon. This also seems a reasonable approach.

Where do we draw the line here, though? Obviously there was a transition from Hebrew to Greek at least in the 1st century on...so why should non hebrew books written before 1st century be excluded, if they were accepted by the early Christians?

Lutherans, and as I understand Anglicans (and RCs with a few exceptions) do not draw Doctrine from these books, but the use of readings from these books are used to support doctrine; just as many of our breviaries use writings of the ECFs for the Daily Office.

The reformed protestant traditions generally discount the value and Scriptural authority of the the ECFs and the Ecumenical Councils; Lutherans and Anglicans do not, as far as these men and councils support Scripture, and are supported by Scripture.

Another example of text which is not included in the Bible, but held in high esteem is the Didache. While not included as part of Scripture, it has served the Church as a model for how we worship. It is from this writing that we get the doxology that we use to conclude the Lord's Prayer "for Thine is the Kingdom..."; something that all reformed protestants use, and most think comes from the Bible, not from an extra-Biblical text.

 

[Montalban]

Who's lacking Wisdom?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The Puritans read and studied the Geneva Bible of 1560-1599, which contains the Apocrypha. These books were, as you have said, taken out by British and American Bible Societies. And yes, it was to save printing cost! The claim was that "so few Pastors ever preached a sermon based upon the books of the Apocrypha" they were no longer needed!
So, when was the last time anyone preached out of Philemon?
Do you think...nah. That would never happen today, right?

LOL
A 'Cliff's Notes' bible.
Other unused scripture to purge:
Jude
2 and 3 John
Leviticus
Numbers
Nehemiah

Firesale! We're reducing inventory!

 

[The Templar]

I don't think he is denying this...

Umm, yeah.
Did you catch the "the canon has not changed" part?
Buy a KJV today, is the Apocrypha there? No?
Buy a copy of the KJV 1611, is it there? Yes!
See? The canon, or what was presented as conon in the KJV, has changed.
That's all I was pointing out.