What's the calibre of your canon?

[Valletta]

Not strange at all

It’s not strange at all …..I don’t know how much of the catholic Church history you are aware of but that was common for many hundreds of years which carried into the 20th century.

Maintaining the Bible in Latin was done so to keep common people from understanding or reading it. It was taught allegorically with religious infusion to the people. Those who dared to translate it to English like Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake… Earlier Wyclif was persecuted and ostracized and most likely would have been killed, but he died… 40 years after his death, his bones were dug up, burned, and thrown into the River Swift.

While you are correct …anybody who had a yearning to know could read but it was frowned upon by the church….even up until the mid-80’s. This told to me by cousin who was a priest …and my grandma who was 94 at the time stated that only priest could read the Bible …..But every catholic family that I knew of had a gigantic red bible sitting on their shelf.

When it changed …I don’t know...I ditched the church when I was 14

Besides Catholics preaching the Gospel around the world, a great many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people, even though for most of the history of Christianity the majority of people were illiterate. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English.
Tragically if you did not follow the particular religion of England or other countries in the Middle ages, you could suffer severe consequence. Catholics ended up persecuting Protestants, Protestants persecuting Catholics. The Catholic Church has strongly defended the Bible, and took action over the centuries to prevent those who would add or subtract from the Word of God, refusing to authorize Bibles that were altered. Some Protestants could be ruthless just like some Catholics, Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible, they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible.
Finally, there were periods and individual priests who sometimes discouraged people from picking up the Bible and reading it through. This was a misguided philosophy so often because of a worry of misinterpretation. Of course, the Catholic mass liturgy is heavy on the Bible, there are typically three readings from the Bible and a homily at a Sunday mass, besides sing Psalms or portions of Psalms from Bible. But you can see just how many popes encourage Bible reading beyond the mass, this has been the case with modern day popes for a long time. But priests sometimes go with the culture or go their own way, there are over a billion Catholics and many priests. Remember the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church.

 

[BobRyan]

Judaism did not have a canon in the first century AD.

Yes they did as the non-Christian Jewish Josephus confirms in the first century AD. Their canon had been finalized for over 300 years by that time. It was already compiled and kept in the Temple for all that time - without change as Josephus points out.

 

[BobRyan]

One might observe that the Hebrew texts were created by non-Christian Jews who might noy have read Greek.

No doubt.

They were not written by Christians living after the time of Christ. So no one can come along centuries after the time of Christ and then claim to have ownership of all the Jewish texts of the OT to tell us what is canon and what is not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not strange at all

It’s not strange at all …..I don’t know how much of the catholic Church history you are aware of but that was common for many hundreds of years which carried into the 20th century.

Maintaining the Bible in Latin was done so to keep common people from understanding or reading it. It was taught allegorically with religious infusion to the people. Those who dared to translate it to English like Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake… Earlier Wyclif was persecuted and ostracized and most likely would have been killed, but he died… 40 years after his death, his bones were dug up, burned, and thrown into the River Swift.

While you are correct …anybody who had a yearning to know could read but it was frowned upon by the church….even up until the mid-80’s. This told to me by cousin who was a priest …and my grandma who was 94 at the time stated that only priest could read the Bible …..But every catholic family that I knew of had a gigantic red bible sitting on their shelf.

When it changed …I don’t know...I ditched the church when I was 14

The Catholic Church teaches that reading the Bible is an essential part of a Catholic's spiritual life. The Bible is considered to be the inspired word of God, and is divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the sacred scriptures of the Jewish people, while the New Testament contains the Gospels and other writings that tell of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholics are encouraged to read and reflect on the Bible daily, and to use it as a guide for their daily lives. The Church also encourages the use of various aids such as commentaries, study guides, and group Bible studies to help individuals gain a deeper understanding of the scripture.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes they did as the non-Christian Jewish Josephus confirms in the first century AD. Their canon had been finalized for over 300 years by that time. It was already compiled and kept in the Temple for all that time - without change as Josephus points out.

The canon of the Old Testament for Judaism in the first century AD was not settled. The process of canonization, or determining which texts were considered to be sacred and authoritative, was ongoing during that time.

During the Second Temple period (516 BC - 70 AD) there were different groups of Jewish people with different beliefs and different scripture collection, each with their own canon.

The canon for the Jewish Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament, was not definitively settled until the end of the first century AD, with the Rabbinic school at Jamnia*. This school, which was composed of Jewish scholars and leaders, reviewed and affirmed the canon of the Hebrew Bible, which included the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. However, it should be noted that some groups did not accept the canonization made in Jamnia and continued to use different texts.

It is also important to note that the canonization of the Old Testament in Judaism was a gradual process, and different texts were considered authoritative and sacred at different times and by different groups of Jewish people.

* the council of Jamnia is not a council but a school and its canon was a tradition of Rabbinic Judaism but not of Judaism in the time of Christ, though it is likely that the Pharisees held the same list of books as sacred in Christ's time. Rabbinic Judaism did not formalise a canon until much later than the Jamnia period, possibly not until the 6th or 7th century AD.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No doubt.

They were not written by Christians living after the time of Christ. So no one can come along centuries after the time of Christ and then claim to have ownership of all the Jewish texts of the OT to tell us what is canon and what is not.

The canon of scripture for Christians was determined by a process of canonization that took place over several centuries. The process of canonization involved the identification, collection, and evaluation of texts that were considered to be sacred and authoritative.

The process of canonization for the New Testament began in the early Christian church, as the apostles and their followers wrote letters and gospels to various communities. These texts were widely circulated and read in the early Christian communities. Over time, certain texts came to be considered more authoritative and were more widely accepted as part of the canon of scripture.

The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) in the Western Church and the Councils of Laodicea (363 AD) and Trullo (692 AD) in the Eastern Church, were key in the canonization process of the New Testament. These councils reviewed and affirmed the canon of the New Testament, which includes the 27 books that are found in modern Bibles.

It's worth noting that some books that are considered by some as scripture, such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, did not make it into the canon. These texts were rejected by the early church on the grounds that they were not written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle.

It should be noted that the canonization process was not universally accepted by all early Christians and some groups continued to use texts that were not included in the canon.

 

[ozso]

The Catholic Church teaches that reading the Bible is an essential part of a Catholic's spiritual life.

When did the Catholic Church start teaching that though?

 

[Jonaitis]

The deuterocanonical books, also known as the Apocrypha, are a collection of texts that were not included in the Hebrew Bible but were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by early Christians. These books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, and portions of Esther and Daniel.

The case for including these texts in the canon of Christian Scripture includes the fact that they were widely used and accepted by the early Christian Church. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by many early Christians, and they were quoted and referenced by early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine. Additionally, the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) both affirmed the canonicity of these texts.

Another argument for their inclusion is that the deuterocanonical books contain valuable teachings and insights that are consistent with the rest of Christian scripture. They provide additional information about the history of the Jewish people and the intertestamental period, as well as moral instruction and wisdom that is applicable to Christians.

In summary, the case for including the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Christian Scripture rests on the fact that they were widely accepted and used by the early Christian Church, were affirmed by key councils, and contain valuable teachings consistent with the rest of Christian scripture.

Jerome, in his prologue of the books of Solomon state that most, if not all, of those books were not seen as canonical to the Church, nor had they any authority for dogma. The Jewish church, to which was entrusted the oracles of God, did not accept them, using the same Old Testament canon as we, as Josephus witnesses (Against Apion 1.8).

The authority and historicity in them are very questionable, too. I don't see a point to pull them all up since they are plainly open to the public. Upon its examination, it is clear that they are not inspired, nor shown to be useful to the in faith and practice. The only defense for them is solely upon one's own tradition to accept them.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jerome, in his prologue of the books of Solomon state that most, if not all, of those books were not seen as canonical to the Church

Saint Jerome, a 4th century Christian theologian and translator, believed that the books of the Old Testament known as the "deuterocanonical" books (also called the "Apocrypha") were not on the same level of authority as the other books of the Old Testament. He considered them to be useful for reading and instruction, but not for establishing doctrine. However, this view was not universally held among early Christians and the canon of the Old Testament was not definitively established until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century.

The early Catholic Church generally accepted the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as part of the canon of Scripture. These books, also known as the Apocrypha, include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, first and second Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. They were considered to be on the same level of authority as the other books of the Old Testament. The council of Hippo in 393, and later the Council of Carthage in 397, officially confirmed the canon of the Old Testament, and canonized these books as part of the canon. This canon was later affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1442.

However, it should be noted that there were some dissenting voices among early Christians, such as Saint Jerome, who did not consider these books to be on the same level of authority as the other books of the Old Testament.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

(staff edit)

The Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, including both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. The Septuagint is important because it is the version of the Bible most frequently cited in the New Testament.

The Septuagint is thought to have originated in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd century BCE, as a translation of the Hebrew Bible for the Jewish community there, many of whom spoke Greek as their primary language. According to tradition, the translation was made by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars, which is where the name "Septuagint" comes from (septuaginta is Latin for "seventy"). The Septuagint was widely used in the early Christian church, and it is thought that the New Testament authors were familiar with it.

Over time, the Septuagint became the standard version of the Old Testament for early Christianity and it was widely used in the early Christian church. However, with the rise of Christianity and the decline of Greek-speaking Judaism, the Septuagint fell out of use in Jewish communities and was replaced by newer translations.

It's worth noting that the Septuagint also include some books not present in the Hebrew canon, these books are called deuterocanonical and were considered sacred by early Christians.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not strange at all

It’s not strange at all …..I don’t know how much of the catholic Church history you are aware of but that was common for many hundreds of years which carried into the 20th century.

Maintaining the Bible in Latin was done so to keep common people from understanding or reading it. It was taught allegorically with religious infusion to the people. Those who dared to translate it to English like Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake… Earlier Wyclif was persecuted and ostracized and most likely would have been killed, but he died… 40 years after his death, his bones were dug up, burned, and thrown into the River Swift.

While you are correct …anybody who had a yearning to know could read but it was frowned upon by the church….even up until the mid-80’s. This told to me by cousin who was a priest …and my grandma who was 94 at the time stated that only priest could read the Bible …..But every catholic family that I knew of had a gigantic red bible sitting on their shelf.

When it changed …I don’t know...I ditched the church when I was 14

Your understanding of that history is a bit skewed.

The Bible was in Latin because the translation was made at a time when Latin was the common language, that's why it is called the Vulgate (Latin: Vulgata), meaning "Common", because it was translated into the common (rather than high or a more sophisticated form of Latin). That Vulgar Latin then evolved in different places, after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, into the Romance family of languages. Western Europe was also occupied by Germanic peoples who brought their languages, and those languages influenced the shape and form of Vulgar Latin or became the established language of those places of Germanic occupation. So, for example, in Hispania the Visigoths created a kingdom, and the Visigoth's language was a major influence on the Vulgar Latin there, resulting in the languages of Portuguese, Castillian (Spanish), Catalan, etc. In Gaul the native Gaulish (Celtic) along with Vulgar Latin, and then later Frankish were major influences, resulting in Vulgar Latin becoming, most famously, French. In Germania where Rome had not occupied, but was ruled over by the Frankish kings, the languages of the Franks, Saxons, etc would become modern German. When the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons came to the island of Britain the native Brittonic (Celtic) languages were supplanted by the Anglo-Saxon language (aka Old English), and then later influenced by Old Norse through the Danelaw and most radically the Normans who brought with them their unique Norse-influenced French when William the Conqueror conquered England.

So what happened was that Latin simply continued to be the language of the Liturgy, including, then, the Bible. But that didn't mean that nobody translated the Bible, or parts of the Bible, into other languages. That did happen. There were translations of the Bible into other languages in the West before Wycliffe, into Old English for example.

Concerning Wycliffe: He wasn't really persecuted, in fact, he was never condemned by church authorities during his own lifetime. It was only decades after his death that he became hugely controversial because of the teachings of his followers--the Lollards--and as a response he was condemned post-mortem. That's why he was dug up 40 years after his death and thrown into the river, he wasn't condemned until 40 years after his death.

Tyndale, it should be noted, was not condemned and executed by Catholic authorities, but by the authority of King Henry VIII, who had already broken off from Rome at that point. Tyndale wasn't in trouble for making an English translation and Rome didn't like that, he was in trouble for advocating the teachings of the Reformation from the Continent because while Henry VIII broke from Rome, he was still anti-Protestant. That's why Tyndale left England for safety in Protestant Holland. Where royal agents eventually found him, captured him, and brought him back to England where he was put to death.

The Reformers truly did want the Bible in the language of the people, but the idea that Latin was used intentionally to keep people ignorant would be technically wrong--Latin was retained because that's the way things had been for over a thousand years already in the West. There was a lot of corruption and abuse, and a lot of problems--for example priests often were themselves completely uneducated in the things they were doing and saying. Priests, therefore, sometimes couldn't communicate and properly teach the lay people even if they wanted to, because they lacked the education necessary. This wasn't a uniquely Protestant criticism of the time, many who remained loyal to Rome and who remained in good standing with Rome, were aware of problems like these and were a big reason why certain reforms were undertaken by Rome itself. That's also why officially approved Roman Catholic translations of the Bible began appearing. That needs to be understood, otherwise we're going to have a very skewed understanding of that history and its very, very, very complex situations.

I'm not trying to say "oh, things weren't bad", because of course they were. But to I think we really need to understand that history more carefully. Because it wasn't "Rome hates the Bible and is afraid people will read it", it's that there was a LOT going on, and the the kinds of problems were in many cases much worse than that. Biblical illiteracy among both clergy and laity was a big problem, and it no doubt contributed to many other problems; but that is ultimately less a case of some systematic attempt by the authorities in Rome trying to suppress anyone and more a case of massive ineptitude of those church authorities in many cases, bureaucratic corruption in many cases, and good old fashioned human greed and the lust for political power. A lot of well-intentioned people, a lot of really bad-intentioned people, a lot of really inept people, a lot of really smart people who couldn't do much. It was a mess, a huge mess. And basically everyone knew it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

The deuterocanonical books, also known as the Apocrypha, are a collection of texts that were not included in the Hebrew Bible but were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by early Christians. These books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, and portions of Esther and Daniel.

The case for including these texts in the canon of Christian Scripture includes the fact that they were widely used and accepted by the early Christian Church. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by many early Christians, and they were quoted and referenced by early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine. Additionally, the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) both affirmed the canonicity of these texts.

Another argument for their inclusion is that the deuterocanonical books contain valuable teachings and insights that are consistent with the rest of Christian scripture. They provide additional information about the history of the Jewish people and the intertestamental period, as well as moral instruction and wisdom that is applicable to Christians.

In summary, the case for including the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Christian Scripture rests on the fact that they were widely accepted and used by the early Christian Church, were affirmed by key councils, and contain valuable teachings consistent with the rest of Christian scripture.

And Hippo and Carthage were also two of the same councils that formally determined the canon of the New Testament.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The deuterocanonical books, also known as the Apocrypha, are a collection of texts that were not included in the Hebrew Bible but were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by early Christians. These books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, and portions of Esther and Daniel.

The case for including these texts in the canon of Christian Scripture includes the fact that they were widely used and accepted by the early Christian Church. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by many early Christians, and they were quoted and referenced by early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine. Additionally, the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) both affirmed the canonicity of these texts.

Another argument for their inclusion is that the deuterocanonical books contain valuable teachings and insights that are consistent with the rest of Christian scripture. They provide additional information about the history of the Jewish people and the intertestamental period, as well as moral instruction and wisdom that is applicable to Christians.

In summary, the case for including the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Christian Scripture rests on the fact that they were widely accepted and used by the early Christian Church, were affirmed by key councils, and contain valuable teachings consistent with the rest of Christian scripture.

I use the Deuterocanonical books quite a bit and find them useful. I think they're paritcularly useful for understanding 2nd Temple Judaism and concepts like the personification of the Wisdom of God (and the NT potrays Jesus as God's Wisdom in the flesh). My denom. doesn't consider them canonical though, which amounts to not reading them aloud in the service or making them a central point of focus for things like devotion and instruction. But if you're going to understand 2nd Temple Judaism and the setting of the New Testament, reading them and using them will be unavoidable. And FWIW, they are in fact in Protestant bibles - it just depends on which Protestant bibles you have. The ESV makes a version with the Deuterocanon as does the NRSV (and the KJV used to contain them if I recall correctly).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And FWIW, they are in fact in Protestant bibles - it just depends on which Protestant bibles you have.

Yes, in some protestant bibles.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I use the Deuterocanonical books quite a bit and find them useful.

very laudable for one to be familiar with them and read them. Even more laudable to believe them and receive them as holy scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

The canon of scripture for Christians was determined by a process of canonization that took place over several centuries.

The Jews wrote and canonized the OT before the time of Christ as their own first century A.D. historians (Josephus) points out.

Your thread title is dealing not with the NT texts of Christians -- but of the pre-Christian OT texts of the Jews.

The Jews cannot dictate to Christian what is in the NT and Christians cannot dictate to Jews what is in the Hebrew Bible - OT.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Jews wrote and canonized the OT before the time of Christ as their own first century A.D. historians (Josephus) points out.

Your thread title is dealing not with the NT texts of Christians -- but of the pre-Christian OT texts of the Jews.

The Jews cannot dictate to Christian what is in the NT and Christians cannot dictate to Jews what is in the Hebrew Bible - OT.

All three of the statements above are incorrect.

 

[BobRyan]

All three of the statements above are incorrect.

That is not correct

 

[BobRyan]

The canon of the Old Testament for Judaism in the first century AD was not settled. The process of canonization, or determining which texts were considered to be sacred and authoritative, was ongoing during that time.

Josephus point out in the first century that it was kept in the temple - canonized as unchanged text for 400 years.

I think Josephus had the best first-hand view of the situation as of the first century.

During the Second Temple period (516 BC - 70 AD) there were different groups of Jewish people with different beliefs

But they were not storing different texts of scripture in the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus is very clear on that point.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Josephus point out in the first century that it was kept in the temple - canonized as unchanged text for 400 years.

I think Josephus had the best first-hand view of the situation as of the first century.

But they were not storing different texts of scripture in the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus is very clear on that point.

Yes, and Josephus wasn't the only one. A good resource on this is Roger T. Beckwith's "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church."