Tyndale and defying the Pope

[MarkRohfrietsch]

the Augsburg confession is not used often in Lutheran churches when teaching doctrines

It is in ours!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So did Jan Hus and John Wycliffe reject the contested Sacred books then as well? I haven't heard this one before. Any documentation to support this?

Also I am not speaking of doctrine or dogma here which I agree, but rather the Biblical canon and how the Protestant groups almost universally adopted the Rabbinical OT over the Christian OT. Any light on the subject would be appreciated.

Should this become a different thread?

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that Hus and Wycliffe rejected the Deuterocanon.

I was trying to demonstrate how Luther's influence on Protestant groups was limited. His understanding of the deuterocanon/apocrypha is simply not the decisive factor that "got the ball rolling" in the eventual deletion of that section of scripture from Protestant English Bibles.

In any case, Luther's understanding of canonicity is not really informed by the distinction between Protocanon and Deuterocanon (Apocrypha). Rather, Luther sees scripture as a sliding scale from books that are most authoritative, central to the narrative of scripture, explicit and clear with ideas, and have never been doubted (homologoumena) and books that are less authoritative, less central to scripture's overall narrative, more subtle and obscure, and whose authority has been questioned from time to time. This places Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, Matthew, John, Romans, and Galatians at one end of the scale, and Esther, the Deuterocanon, Hebrews, James, and Revelation near the other end.

When Protestants refer to the principle "scripture interprets scripture" they're (knowingly or unknowingly) referring back to the idea that scripture on the homologoumena side of the scale is used to help make sense of passages in books on the antilegoumena side of the scale.

But, importantly, this absolutely places books like James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon within, and absolutely within, the bounds of Scripture. There's no clear break where the Deuterocanon can be cleaved off as "Apocrypha." Books can be moved around (just as they were in Luther's German translation), but the canon of scripture in this scheme is quite solid. Luther may have bad things to say about Esther and James, but he concerns himself with them at all because they are unequivocally scripture.

And this view is hardly unique to Luther. Luther didn't consider himself an innovator in this at all. It can be found in numerous exegetes throughout church history, from Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome to Catholic scholars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan come to mind).

And the upshot of this is that this distinction is that it is both true to historical debates surrounding canonicity and helpful as a useful exegetical tool. Unlike the simple Protocanon/Deuterocanon distinction- a distinction without a difference according to Trent but a distinction nonetheless- the antilegoumena/homolegoumena distinction actually invites the reader into scripture through its clearest and more central books. I'd even go so far as to say that it preserves the organic unity between the Protocanon and the Deuterocanon more thoroughly that the Tridentine distinction, which is a mere protest rather than a viable alternative to Protestant scissors.

That, anyway, is my reading. Lutherans in North America have largely been confined to using biblical translations prepared by Protestants and so many us have lost seeing the Deuterocanon as canon. But our book of confessions, the Book of Concord, never lists any set of absolute biblical books (unlike, say, the Westminster Confession or the Council of Trent), and were our confessions are silent I'm as free to be as Catholic as I want to be. I'm therefore thrilled about our new study addition of the Apocrypha (as its called by Concordia Publishing House), and hope it's just another short step to a restored English Lutheran Bible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

the Augsburg confession is not used often in Lutheran churches when teaching doctrines

Oh, BTW, there is no mention of the Canon of Scripture in the Book of Concord; but there are a bunch of quotes from the wayward books in there!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

the Augsburg confession is not used often in Lutheran churches when teaching doctrines

That's sad. It's used where I go (Bethlehem Lutheran, Fairborn OH, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod). Where have you gone?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that Hus and Wycliffe rejected the Deuterocanon.

I was trying to demonstrate how Luther's influence on Protestant groups was limited. His understanding of the deuterocanon/apocrypha is simply not the decisive factor that "got the ball rolling" in the eventual deletion of that section of scripture from Protestant English Bibles.

In any case, Luther's understanding of canonicity is not really informed by the distinction between Protocanon and Deuterocanon (Apocrypha). Rather, Luther sees scripture as a sliding scale from books that are most authoritative, central to the narrative of scripture, explicit and clear with ideas, and have never been doubted (homologoumena) and books that are less authoritative, less central to scripture's overall narrative, more subtle and obscure, and whose authority has been questioned from time to time. This places Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, Matthew, John, Romans, and Galatians at one end of the scale, and Esther, the Deuterocanon, Hebrews, James, and Revelation near the other end.

When Protestants refer to the principle "scripture interprets scripture" they're (knowingly or unknowingly) referring back to the idea that scripture on the homologoumena side of the scale is used to help make sense of passages in books on the antilegoumena side of the scale.

But, importantly, this absolutely places books like James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon within, and absolutely within, the bounds of Scripture. There's no clear break where the Deuterocanon can be cleaved off as "Apocrypha." Books can be moved around (just as they were in Luther's German translation), but the canon of scripture in this scheme is quite solid. Luther may have bad things to say about Esther and James, but he concerns himself with them at all because they are unequivocally scripture.

And this view is hardly unique to Luther. Luther didn't consider himself an innovator in this at all. It can be found in numerous exegetes throughout church history, from Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome to Catholic scholars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan come to mind).

And the upshot of this is that this distinction is that it is both true to historical debates surrounding canonicity and helpful as a useful exegetical tool. Unlike the simple Protocanon/Deuterocanon distinction- a distinction without a difference according to Trent but a distinction nonetheless- the antilegoumena/homolegoumena distinction actually invites the reader into scripture through its clearest and more central books. I'd even go so far as to say that it preserves the organic unity between the Protocanon and the Deuterocanon more thoroughly that the Tridentine distinction, which is a mere protest rather than a viable alternative to Protestant scissors.

That, anyway, is my reading. Lutherans in North America have largely been confined to using biblical translations prepared by Protestants and so many us have lost seeing the Deuterocanon as canon. But our book of confessions, the Book of Concord, never lists any set of absolute biblical books (unlike, say, the Westminster Confession or the Council of Trent), and were our confessions are silent I'm as free to be as Catholic as I want to be. I'm therefore thrilled about our new study addition of the Apocrypha (as its called by Concordia Publishing House), and hope it's just another short step to a restored English Lutheran Bible.

A short step to a restored English Bible; the ESV can be had with the Apocrypha: http://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That's sad. It's used where I go (Bethlehem Lutheran, Fairborn OH, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod). Where have you gone?

ELCIC Congregation maybe?

 

[Erose]

Yes, Galileo was a bit low I admit, but the point remains that one could be right, and still get thrown under the bus... I work in a factory and it happens to me all the time!

Well to be honest Galileo was wrong too. His theory spoke of the universe revolving around the sun, not just the solar system.

That is besides the point any way. What got him in trouble wasn't the heliocentric theory, as he wasn't the only scientist at that time or before that was thinking it was a possibility. No he got in trouble for two things. 1) He insulted the pope, which is never a good thing to insult the most powerful man in the world at that time, and your benefactor. I know the pope should of had thicker skin, but this one didn't. 2) At one point he proclaimed that the Bible was wrong since he felt it taught that the earth was the center of the universe. I'm not sure were he got that from, because for the life of me, I haven't found that verse.

Anyway it was number two that got him in front of the inquisition. It should also be noted that Galileo was only under house arrest, staying in the papal retreat, so it wasn't as if he was put in chains, and had to eat maggoty bread. Not only that the pope allowed him to continue his research and even footed the bill.

The point is that there is a lot of false info about Galileo incidence.

These things we discuss from our PoVs, as they have been formed by our traditions and our Teachers (ECF's included).

My tradition doesn't necessarily speak of the formation of the canon, and why these books were selected. It just speaks that these are the ones the Church Fathers selected as inspired, so we will go with these.

Much of the process is kind of unknown for some reason. I guess since the canon was getting fleshed out during the persecutions there really isn't much information available to shed a light on the subject. It seems that for the early Christians, what was and was not Scripture wasn't very important. If a writing spoke a truth, it was good enough for them, it seems. Very fascinating subject if you ask me.

Me too, this is why I keep coming back to CF; as much as we enjoy this sort of thing, I'm so looking forward to spending time with the theologians in paradise and find out exactly what they were thinking, and who was actually the most correct.

Yeah. Sometimes I wonder why I keep coming back, but there are times were very good and healthy conversations do occur.

Here's a good place to start: https://www.google.ca/search?q="Can...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=mb84Uv6-F8WZqgGw74GICQ

Thank you

Here I'm a bit stumped, but I'm going to take a guess at it...

Even post reformation, theologians talked to each other; most often in Latin, regardless of their country of origin; heck Latin was still reasonably common in academia up until the mid 20th cent. Because of the world wide influence of the British Empire, and it being Anglican/Protestant from the RC PoV, they and their theologians had a great deal of influence both throughout the empire and world wide.

German Speaking Protestants gravitated to Luther's Bible, just as English speaking ones did to the KJV.

While I can not speak for the more progressive English Speaking Amish and Mennonites, the conservative old order ones we have in abundance around here still speak German, still worship in German, and still use Luther's translation with the Apocrypha; as did the Reformed Calvinist EUB Church from Germany and Alsace.

Apart from Anglicanism, it's my guess that it was the influence of British, Anglican, Methodist and Scottish reformed and Calvinist Presbyterians, as Britain colonized the world, that introduced the idea of an apocrypha free Bible.

As with so many things British, there may have been an exorbitant tax on paper too!

So in a sense since Britain was a world power at that time and Protestant, this in a sense made Britain the "Supreme Authority" in Protestantism. Very interesting theory.

 

[Erose]

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that Hus and Wycliffe rejected the Deuterocanon.

I was trying to demonstrate how Luther's influence on Protestant groups was limited. His understanding of the deuterocanon/apocrypha is simply not the decisive factor that "got the ball rolling" in the eventual deletion of that section of scripture from Protestant English Bibles.

In any case, Luther's understanding of canonicity is not really informed by the distinction between Protocanon and Deuterocanon (Apocrypha). Rather, Luther sees scripture as a sliding scale from books that are most authoritative, central to the narrative of scripture, explicit and clear with ideas, and have never been doubted (homologoumena) and books that are less authoritative, less central to scripture's overall narrative, more subtle and obscure, and whose authority has been questioned from time to time. This places Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, Matthew, John, Romans, and Galatians at one end of the scale, and Esther, the Deuterocanon, Hebrews, James, and Revelation near the other end.

When Protestants refer to the principle "scripture interprets scripture" they're (knowingly or unknowingly) referring back to the idea that scripture on the homologoumena side of the scale is used to help make sense of passages in books on the antilegoumena side of the scale.

But, importantly, this absolutely places books like James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon within, and absolutely within, the bounds of Scripture. There's no clear break where the Deuterocanon can be cleaved off as "Apocrypha." Books can be moved around (just as they were in Luther's German translation), but the canon of scripture in this scheme is quite solid. Luther may have bad things to say about Esther and James, but he concerns himself with them at all because they are unequivocally scripture.

And this view is hardly unique to Luther. Luther didn't consider himself an innovator in this at all. It can be found in numerous exegetes throughout church history, from Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome to Catholic scholars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan come to mind).

And the upshot of this is that this distinction is that it is both true to historical debates surrounding canonicity and helpful as a useful exegetical tool. Unlike the simple Protocanon/Deuterocanon distinction- a distinction without a difference according to Trent but a distinction nonetheless- the antilegoumena/homolegoumena distinction actually invites the reader into scripture through its clearest and more central books. I'd even go so far as to say that it preserves the organic unity between the Protocanon and the Deuterocanon more thoroughly that the Tridentine distinction, which is a mere protest rather than a viable alternative to Protestant scissors.

That, anyway, is my reading. Lutherans in North America have largely been confined to using biblical translations prepared by Protestants and so many us have lost seeing the Deuterocanon as canon. But our book of confessions, the Book of Concord, never lists any set of absolute biblical books (unlike, say, the Westminster Confession or the Council of Trent), and were our confessions are silent I'm as free to be as Catholic as I want to be. I'm therefore thrilled about our new study addition of the Apocrypha (as its called by Concordia Publishing House), and hope it's just another short step to a restored English Lutheran Bible.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Lutherans view the contested books as Holy Scripture? Is this really true? If so, are there books in your canon that isn't in ours such as ps 151, prayer of Manasseh, 3rd and 4th Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees?

Concerning the Tridentine definition that you referred to. It needs to be pointed out that yes it was a defense of these writings as Scripture and not an addition of these writings of Scripture. The council of Florence made it quite clear that these books were Scripture. Then you have the synods of Rome & Hippo, as well as the Council of Carthage, which all of these were at the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th.

Concerning Athanasius' canon, it seems that there was smaller canon used in the Patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch, up to the 5th century. The council of Laodicea in canon 60 highlights the usage of canon by Antioch. Both canon lists of Athanasius and the synod of Laodicea are witnesses to the Hebrew canon at the time composed of 22 scrolls. The main difference between the current Hebrew canon and the early witnesses of the Hebrew canon revolves around three writings primarily: Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, and Esther. These three seems to float in and out of the 22 scrolls, with them being announced in most lists of that time period, but for some reason in the 5th and/or 6th century, the deciding Rabbis decided for Esther and rejected Ep of Jeremiah and Baruch.

Like I said fascinating stuff.

Traditionally from as early as I can find (4th century) there has been a ordering of Scripture in the Church: The 4 gospels have the primacy, afterwards the rest of the NT, and then the OT. There really wasn't a separation of the books commonly referred to as the Protocanonicals and Deuterocanonicals in the Western Church and as far as I can figure out even the Eastern Churches.

In fact were these two terms come from is a Jewish convert to the Faith, who coined these terms to differentiate the books rejected by his Jewish brethren and those accepted. It was an apologetic tool for him. His name was Sixtus of Siena and he coined these terms in the 16th century. Sadly they have been used the wrong way by both non-Catholics and Catholics as well, giving the impression that these writings are not on par with the rest of the OT. This within the Catholic Church is false. And they are treated as such.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

And the upshot of this is that this distinction is that it is both true to historical debates surrounding canonicity and helpful as a useful exegetical tool. Unlike the simple Protocanon/Deuterocanon distinction- a distinction without a difference according to Trent but a distinction nonetheless- the antilegoumena/homolegoumena distinction actually invites the reader into scripture through its clearest and more central books. I'd even go so far as to say that it preserves the organic unity between the Protocanon and the Deuterocanon more thoroughly that the Tridentine distinction, which is a mere protest rather than a viable alternative to Protestant scissors.

...

Trent made no comment about proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books in the canon of sacred scripture. Those words and the distinctions that they represent were an invention of a later time to facilitate discussion with Protestant people without the use of prejudicial words such as apocrypha.

Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures​

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,—lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:

Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.​

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.​

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent

The Fourth Session

Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.

English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>
So in a sense since Britain was a world power at that time and Protestant, this in a sense made Britain the "Supreme Authority" in Protestantism. Very interesting theory.

I did a bit more hunting and here's what I came up with...

The Rev. Dr Paul L. Maier did the research for us, and I found it in the foreword of The Apocrypha, Lutheran Edition with notes; page xvi-xviii.

• As we all know, Luther "pried them apart from their scattered placements in the Old Testament, and moved them as a group into a separate location between the Testaments" published in 1534
• Myles Coverdale followed Luthers lead in his authorized English translation in 1535
• The KJV followed suit in 1611

Dr. Maier goes on to extol their virtues.


On page xxxix, in an excerpt of Edwin Cone Bissell's "The Apocrypha of the Old Testament" (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), pp54-58 entitled "The Apocrypha in Modern Bible Publications", Bissell wrights about Parliament passing the act labelling them non canonical, which allowed their removal. While a Rev. Dr. Lightfoot lobbied them to order it's removal, they never did, but "by common consent, to be omitted from new editions of the Authorized Version".


As I had surmised it was Britain, but not quite the way I had considered; he goes on to speak about how British and Scottish Bible Societies subsidized the publication of Bibles world wide (not just in the British Commonwealth); and they more and more often and with ever increasing urgency made this subsidization conditional on the omission of these books.


His book is again in print, and since it is an interest of yours, you may want to consider getting a hold of a copy: The Apocrypha of the Old Testament - Edwin Cone Bissell - Google Books


God bless!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ooops.....double post

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

I notice there are some that voted they didn't know who he was:

Who the heck was Tyndale?

10 7.87%

William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Betrayal and death

Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips to the imperial authorities,[24] seized in Antwerp in 1535 and held in the castle of Vilvoorde (Filford) near Brussels.[25] He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[26] (The strangulation was not fully effective and Tyndale partially revived, it was reported that he was aware of being burned but died in a quiet, stoical manner).

Reportedly, Tyndale's final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[27] The traditional date of commemoration is 6 October, but records of Tyndale's imprisonment suggest the actual date of his execution might have been some weeks earlier.[28] Foxe gives 6 October as the date of commemoration (left-hand date column), but gives no date of death (right-hand date column).[25]

Within four years, at the same king's behest, four English translations of the Bible were published in England,[29] including Henry's official Great Bible. All were based on Tyndale's work. Even though Tyndale’s translation of the Old Testament remained unfinished at his death, his work formed the basis of all subsequent English translations of the Bible, including the 'King James' version of 1611.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

I notice there are some that voted they didn't know who he was:

...
William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
...

It's a little late for educating the votes you've highlighted

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

<snip>

Well, LLoJ; you gave me a rep for this NON-Tyndale post BTW: #373.

Also, if we can keep this sucker going, you will not have to bring it back from the dead!

Good thread BTW!

 

[Erose]

I did a bit more hunting and here's what I came up with...

The Rev. Dr Paul L. Maier did the research for us, and I found it in the foreword of The Apocrypha, Lutheran Edition with notes; page xvi-xviii.

• As we all know, Luther "pried them apart from their scattered placements in the Old Testament, and moved them as a group into a separate location between the Testaments" published in 1534
• Myles Coverdale followed Luthers lead in his authorized English translation in 1535
• The KJV followed suit in 1611

Dr. Maier goes on to extol their virtues.


On page xxxix, in an excerpt of Edwin Cone Bissell's "The Apocrypha of the Old Testament" (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), pp54-58 entitled "The Apocrypha in Modern Bible Publications", Bissell wrights about Parliament passing the act labelling them non canonical, which allowed their removal. While a Rev. Dr. Lightfoot lobbied them to order it's removal, they never did, but "by common consent, to be omitted from new editions of the Authorized Version".


As I had surmised it was Britain, but not quite the way I had considered; he goes on to speak about how British and Scottish Bible Societies subsidized the publication of Bibles world wide (not just in the British Commonwealth); and they more and more often and with ever increasing urgency made this subsidization conditional on the omission of these books.


His book is again in print, and since it is an interest of yours, you may want to consider getting a hold of a copy: The Apocrypha of the Old Testament - Edwin Cone Bissell - Google Books


God bless!

Interesting so in a sense we were right and wrong in our assumptions. Britain is the reason for their removal, but not by the way proposed, but rather, they had the money and most probably printed the Bibles that had a partial OT. Interesting. Interesting indeed.

So in a sense, the Protestant Bible is incomplete, due to the refusal of British Bible societies to print the full Bible. (I know this is simplification to the max, but it is getting late)

Now the this raises two questions:

1) Why did the Brits reject these books in the first place?
2) How many Protestants really realize that they have a partial Bible due to the Brits?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Lutherans view the contested books as Holy Scripture? Is this really true? If so, are there books in your canon that isn't in ours such as ps 151, prayer of Manasseh, 3rd and 4th Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees?

Oh good, you know what you're talking about. Awesome.

I view them as Holy Scripture, and I think that's a perfectly legitimate position within the Lutheran tradition and the most authentically Lutheran position. However, I don't think it puts you out of Lutheran bounds to think otherwise, although I would contend that such a person needs to rethink both their canon and their Lutheranism.

As for those books which are apocryphal among Catholics and deuterocanonical among Greek, Slavic, and Oriental Orthodox, and those books which aren't even apocryphal in the west but are apocryphal in the east, I would say those are outside the canon but are chief contexts for the study of Holy Scripture, alongside the Apostolic Fathers.

Well, that's one answer anyway. Actually, if I was to be a true Lutheran, I'd probably have to go with the Book of Concord's silence on the issue of the canon and throw my hands up, saying "I dunno." The antilegoumena were incorporated into the canon partly out of a belief in their inspiration but also partly when checked against the norm of the homolegoumena. Thus, the assumption is that James and Hebrews ultimately agree with Paul, even if you have interpret them in light of Paul to get there. Can you do the same with 3 and 4 Maccabees or 2 Esdras (4-6 Ezra)? I think so, but I could never be sure of their apostolic authority.

And, in fact, that touches on the further issue that this thread is all about: does that apostolic authority get cut off with the canon, or does it continue through the apostolic fathers, the antenicene fathers, the ecumenical councils, and the postnicene fathers?

I'd say yes. But that certainly doesn't mean they're canonical; just authoritative. So, too, the apocrypha outside the deuterocanon. 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees may not be inspired, canonical scripture, but they certainly have a degree of authority, even if that authority is merely the historical authority to provide context for scripture.

Concerning the Tridentine definition that you referred to. It needs to be pointed out that yes it was a defense of these writings as Scripture and not an addition of these writings of Scripture. The council of Florence made it quite clear that these books were Scripture. Then you have the synods of Rome & Hippo, as well as the Council of Carthage, which all of these were at the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th.

Concerning Athanasius' canon, it seems that there was smaller canon used in the Patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch, up to the 5th century. The council of Laodicea in canon 60 highlights the usage of canon by Antioch. Both canon lists of Athanasius and the synod of Laodicea are witnesses to the Hebrew canon at the time composed of 22 scrolls. The main difference between the current Hebrew canon and the early witnesses of the Hebrew canon revolves around three writings primarily: Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, and Esther. These three seems to float in and out of the 22 scrolls, with them being announced in most lists of that time period, but for some reason in the 5th and/or 6th century, the deciding Rabbis decided for Esther and rejected Ep of Jeremiah and Baruch.

Like I said fascinating stuff.

Absolutely.

What I get out of the above, however, is that it really depends on who you ask. And ultimately, the fluidity of the canon- settled in one way or another, either by Catholic "ecumenical" councils (sorry, I just don't consider anything after Nicea II in 787 ecumenical) or the Westminster Confessions or the table of contents in Luther's Deutsche Bibel- remains a question of who you ask. And since I don't consider any councils after the seventh ecumenical council authoritative, and really don't have much appreciation for the historical state of ecclesiastical authority after the schisms of 1054 (Orthodoxy), 1530 (the Augsburg Confession), and 1558 (the final Supremacy Act of the English Church), it remains an open question.

Traditionally from as early as I can find (4th century) there has been a ordering of Scripture in the Church: The 4 gospels have the primacy, afterwards the rest of the NT, and then the OT. There really wasn't a separation of the books commonly referred to as the Protocanonicals and Deuterocanonicals in the Western Church and as far as I can figure out even the Eastern Churches.

The manuscript evidence just doesn't bear this out. The great Alexandrian manuscripts have varying orders and include a whole variety of canonical inclusions, omitting James and Hebrews in some cases and including the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas in another. And the ordering of the epistles varies wildly, with the catholic epistles listed between the gospels and Acts, or between Acts and Paul (as in Athanasius). It's just wacky back there.

Hebrew manuscripts like the Aleppo Codex and Codex Leningradensis, of course, have the Jewish order of Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim, which is pretty clearly the original order if you just look at the composition history and logic behind the two major ordering schemes. However, rather that derail this thread on topic of Jewish vs. Christian order (as opposed to Jewish vs. Christian canons), feel free to private message me.

In fact were these two terms come from is a Jewish convert to the Faith, who coined these terms to differentiate the books rejected by his Jewish brethren and those accepted. It was an apologetic tool for him. His name was Sixtus of Siena and he coined these terms in the 16th century. Sadly they have been used the wrong way by both non-Catholics and Catholics as well, giving the impression that these writings are not on par with the rest of the OT. This within the Catholic Church is false. And they are treated as such.

Well, except Athanasius' 39th festal letter from Easter 367, which makes a pretty clear distinction between the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Deuterocanon. He's very clear that the other books are not part of the canon but have "been appointed by the fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety."

Now as I'm sure you'd (rightly) point out, the canon was in flux at the time and Athanasius' views were later rejected by the church. But that really just brings us back to the issue of authority, while clearly demonstrating that the distinction between protocanon and deuterocanon are very ancient, even if the terms are early modern.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Trent made no comment about proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books in the canon of sacred scripture. Those words and the distinctions that they represent were an invention of a later time to facilitate discussion with Protestant people without the use of prejudicial words such as apocrypha.

My mistake. As Erose has already pointed out, the terms were those of Sixtus of Sienna, who used them to distinction between his native Jewish canon and that of the Catholic Church, and whose writings widely used in the Bellarmine era.

In any case, the distinction goes back at least as far as Athanasius' 39th festal letter.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Just a reminder folks.
This thread topic is on W. Tyndale only.

Gah. You're right, of course.

Here, from post 416:

What I get out of the above, however, is that it really depends on who you ask. And ultimately, the fluidity of the canon- settled in one way or another, either by Catholic "ecumenical" councils (sorry, I just don't consider anything after Nicea II in 787 ecumenical) or the Westminster Confessions or the table of contents in Luther's Deutsche Bibel- remains a question of who you ask. And since I don't consider any councils after the seventh ecumenical council authoritative, and really don't have much appreciation for the historical state of ecclesiastical authority after the schisms of 1054 (Orthodoxy), 1530 (the Augsburg Confession), and 1558 (the final Supremacy Act of the English Church), it remains an open question.

Lets use that as a jumping off point to get back on topic (Mark, Erose, MoreCoffee).

William Tyndale and the question of authority.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting so in a sense we were right and wrong in our assumptions. Britain is the reason for their removal, but not by the way proposed, but rather, they had the money and most probably printed the Bibles that had a partial OT. Interesting. Interesting indeed.

The way I read it, it seems they were subsidizing the local printing and distribution. Even in the 19th Cent. printing was costly compared to the mechanization of today. It seems that they would have let the local "chapter" arrange the printing , and then they would cover the cost.

British imperialism knew few bounds; the buggers were always trying to exert control over some thing, even if it was none of their business. Some countries still do this. As with the British, they still tend to keep the peace; but I digress... it is late.

So in a sense, the Protestant Bible is incomplete, due to the refusal of British Bible societies to print the full Bible. (I know this is simplification to the max, but it is getting late)

Late and simple as it is, I think we have nailed it.

Now the this raises two questions:

1) Why did the Brits reject these books in the first place?

Because, as I understand it, it was an other way of distancing them from the "Papists"; remember the Elizabeth/Mary thing. No other reason makes sense.

2) How many Protestants really realize that they have a partial Bible due to the Brits?

Few if any; they have fallen for the rhetoric and know steadfastly that they have saved God's kingdom by averting their eyes and minds from these books.

We should pray for them.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Because, as I understand it, it was an other way of distancing them from the "Papists"; remember the Elizabeth/Mary thing. No other reason makes sense.

Actually, Bibles in the Church of England and endorsed by the Church of England still include the Apocrypha as a separate section. The New Revised Standard Version annotated study editions put out by Cambridge and Oxford are good examples. Moreover, the lectionary schedule in the Book of Common Prayer includes readings from the deuterocanon as Old Testament readings.

I'd blame America before I blamed Britain. The Puritans (who wanted to purify the Church of England of all the "papist" elements, like the deuterocanon and the liturgy and... singing...) and the various other Protestant groups that ended up in the colonies wanted "purified' Bibles of the Reformed/Puritan type, and as I recall were the ones who began publishing King James Versions without the Apocrypha section.

I'd be curious to know if Bibles published during the Commonwealth reign of Oliver Cromwell, the height of Puritanism within the Church of England, contained the Apocrypha section. The Westminster Confession, authored after the Roundhead victory in the English Civil War, does not include them, but it seems no King James Bible was published without the Apocrypha until 1666.

Also, English Bibles published for the Church of Scotland (a Reformed church) probably never included the deuterocanon.

And does anybody know about the original Methodist Bibles? I mean, John Wesley was a high church Anglican after all. When did Methodists cut it off?

But as for Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, free church and organized evangelicals, well, that's the Reformed heritage, from the continent through the Puritans to the whole of the English-speaking world.

Anyways. Tyndale!