Some thoughts about the canon of the Old Testament.

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Catholics count 46 books as canonical Old Testament scripture and 27 as canonical New Testament scripture. Others have differing views. Here is some information about the canon of the Old Testament

The canon of the Old Testament in the Church of the first three centuries

The sub-Apostolic writings of Clement, Polycarp, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of the pseudo-Clementine homilies, and the "Shepherd" of Hermas, contain implicit quotations from or allusions to all the deuterocanonicals except Baruch (which anciently was often united with Jeremias) and I Machabees and the additions to David. No unfavourable argument can be drawn from the loose, implicit character of these citations, since these Apostolic Fathers quote the protocanonical Scriptures in precisely the same manner.

Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews', and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito's Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito's restricted canon is explicable on another ground. St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical manuscript known as the "Codex Claromontanus" contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are biblically used in the works of these Fathers.

Source ( www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm )
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Old Testament - one that no other on the planet embraces as such.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
The RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Old Testament - one that no other on the planet embraces as such.

This in itself doesn't make it either correct nor incorrect. There are places in NT texts that actually refer to books not included in the standard (Protestant) canon.

The original Christianity was Jewish Christianity, with Catholicism later developing to "bring in" the gentiles, with arguably many concessions and changes to grow the church. I'm not certain what literature the original Jerusalem church used, but I do find wisdom in some of the books the Catholic church keeps on their list. Not that I have read through all of them by any means, but there is wisdom in some of the works not part of standard Bibles today.

Many who would balk at this would suggest (usually through ignorance) that the bible we have today was the only one ever used by everyone in history - and this is simply not true.

It's not even true today. Different denominations include various OT books not found in Protestant versions, and not just the RCC.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Actually I agree, the other books are full of history, just not the canon
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This in itself doesn't make it either correct nor incorrect.

No. It just means that the singular, individual RC Denomination stands entirely alone, all by itself, on this issue too.



There are places in NT texts that actually refer to books not included in the standard (Protestant) canon.


No.



I'm not certain what literature the original Jerusalem church used


While the LXX (about 300 years before Jesus) included some later rejected, by Jesus' day Jews were using the same 39 books accepted by John Calvin and often found in biblical tomes sold in the USA to Protestants. But this was made official, formal and dogmatic in 90 AD at the Jewish Council at Jamnia. There the Jews finally made it formal and official: those 39 books (and no other) are Scripture (actually they numbered them differently but it's the identical content you likely have in your OT).

Unlike the Jews, Christians have NEVER had a formal, binding meeting on that subject. The Seven Ecumenical Councils (the last ending around 800 AD) included a LOT of topics but what is and is not Scirpture was never one of them. A FEW denominations (the RCC, the Reformed, the Anglican, the LDS) did so but only and exclusively by and for its own self (purely a denominational decision exclusively for that singularly denomination) but, unlike Judaism, Christianity has never officially and formally nailed this down.

However, regarding the OT, consistently and from VERY early on, Christians spoke of various books as canonical and DEUTEROcanonical (the word "deutero" means secondary or under or lesser or subject to). While I doubt that there was any connection (Calvinists insist there is but I doubt it), the fully accepted material is identical to what was considered such in Jesus' day and finally, officially declared to be such in 90 AD at Jamnia by the Jews. But there are a lot more - up to 100. These DEUTERO books were often read but were just not accepted as equal. The Anglican Church accepted a number of them and placed them into their tomes (they still are, they were included in the King James Version of 1611) - MORE than the RCC would eventually accept - BUT placed them together in a section labeled as secondary (Deutero). The Anglican Church includes these in their lectionary and you may hear a sermon from them, but they are not permitted to be used normatively.

Luther included a number of them in his tome, as well (one MORE than the RCC eventually would) and he too gathered them together. But unlike the Anglican Church, Luther refused to give any official formal ruling on their status - arguing that would require an Ecumenical Council (which of course was impossible given the milieu and history). He shared his own individual, personal OPINION (the same as the Anglican Church) but refused to make this binding or official but insisted it was just his own individual, fallible, personal OPINION. Lutheran tomes continue to include these to this day and Lutheran publishing houses sell books of them and commentaries on them. Nearly all Lutheran churches include readings from them in the Lectionary (my own Lutheran denomination, the LCMS, is an exception - we don't read from them in the Sunday Lectionary) but by common custom, we don't use them normatively (to judge Dogma) but only for historic and inspirational reasons. It is permitted to use them as texts for sermons but not as basis for dogma. Following Luther's point that formally declaring what is and is not Scripture requires an ECUMENICAL Council not just a denominational ruling, the Lutheran Confessions are glaringly silent on this topic.



I do find wisdom in some of the books the Catholic church keeps on their list. Not that I have read through all of them by any means, but there is wisdom in some of the works not part of standard Bibles today.


I've read AND STUDIES all those in the unique RCC tome adopted in the 16th Century - one MORE than it did. But interestingly, I studied them in a class in my LUTHERAN church, no such class was ever offered in my Catholic parish.



- Josiah
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As interesting as [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]'s opinions are it would be more interesting to see some reply that addresses the historical information included in the first post.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
There are places in NT texts that actually refer to books not included in the standard (Protestant) canon.


Oh yes.

Please find for me this quote in the OT: "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints"

As recorded in Jude 1:14, quoting whom he calls the prophet Enoch.

- A book NOT FOUND in the protestant Canon.

Here's a list from Wikipedia you can look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Oh yes.

Please find for me this quote in the OT: "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints"

So, friend, you prove yourself wrong. It does not "refer to books not included in the standard Protestant canon." Jude refers to a man, not a book, and quotes the man. Now, if in a Sunday sermon, my Lutheran pastor quoted from something written by Shakespeare, would that mean that ERGO that book by Shakespeare would be included in his Old Testament canon? No, it would simply mean he is quoting from an author.

Yes, there are a few notations in the OT of other books (which, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, no longer exist although that would be hard to prove since NO biblical books had universal names), but again, that does NOT mean they were regarded as Scripture. NO other book is EVER stated as canonical. Again, if you could find some Catholic referencing something from a writing of Pope Francis, that would not prove that the Catholic Church considers that writing to be the 73rd Book of the Bible. That's quite a leap, my friend, as I'm sure you'll agree.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Double post....

Today, when I submit a reply, I get a window "Confirm that you want to leave this page." NOT that the post was uploaded. I chick "yes" and then discover the post was uploaded TWICE. Weird. Could be Firefox misbehaving today...
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Double post....

Today, when I submit a reply, I get a window "Confirm that you want to leave this page." NOT that the post was uploaded. I chick "yes" and then discover the post was uploaded TWICE. Weird. Could be Firefox misbehaving today...

In Microsoft Edge I am getting HTTP error 500 as the message. The post is submitted but it makes it seem like it was not.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
So, friend, you prove yourself wrong. It does not "refer to books not included in the standard Protestant canon." Jude refers to a man, not a book, and quotes the man. Now, if in a Sunday sermon, my Lutheran pastor quoted from something written by Shakespeare, would that mean that ERGO that book by Shakespeare would be included in his Old Testament canon? No, it would simply mean he is quoting from an author.

Yes, there are a few notations in the OT of other books (which, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, no longer exist although that would be hard to prove since NO biblical books had universal names), but again, that does NOT mean they were regarded as Scripture. NO other book is EVER stated as canonical. Again, if you could find some Catholic referencing something from a writing of Pope Francis, that would not prove that the Catholic Church considers that writing to be the 73rd Book of the Bible. That's quite a leap, my friend, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Ah, I see. When you want it to be a man, and not a book, you designate it so. Apply this double minded logic to Isaiah, and I have a man, and not a book, whom I could compare to Shakespeare.
There is a major problem with your comparison, and once again I must reference a logical fallacy you are using, which is that of a false comparsion. Nowhere in the bible is Shakepeare refered to as being a prophet - but Enoch is referred to as such in Jude, just like Isaiah is elsewhere.
The Sunday Sermon you allude to may reference a man and quote him to push a point, but it is an altogether different story if that man is referred to as a prophet. Shakespear is not. Bill Clinton is not.
Enoch is.

Enoch is not the only one. Numerous other writings are referrenced as authoritive that are not part of your Canon. Will you use the same false comparison to dismiss every one of them as you have done here?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Ah, I see. When you want it to be a man, and not a book, you designate it so. Apply this double minded logic to Isaiah, and I have a man, and not a book, whom I could compare to Shakespeare.
There is a major problem with your comparison, and once again I must reference a logical fallacy you are using, which is that of a false comparsion. Nowhere in the bible is Shakepeare refered to as being a prophet - but Enoch is referred to as such in Jude, just like Isaiah is elsewhere.
The Sunday Sermon you allude to may reference a man and quote him to push a point, but it is an altogether different story if that man is referred to as a prophet. Shakespear is not. Bill Clinton is not.
Enoch is.

Enoch is not the only one. Numerous other writings are referrenced as authoritive that are not part of your Canon. Will you use the same false comparison to dismiss every one of them as you have done here?
Does Jude's quotation of Enoch mean the entire book is inspired by God or that the quote Jude used is correct because God inspired Jude to write it?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Ah, I see. When you want it to be a man, and not a book, you designate it so. Apply this double minded logic to Isaiah, and I have a man, and not a book, whom I could compare to Shakespeare.
There is a major problem with your comparison, and once again I must reference a logical fallacy you are using, which is that of a false comparsion. Nowhere in the bible is Shakepeare refered to as being a prophet - but Enoch is referred to as such in Jude, just like Isaiah is elsewhere.
The Sunday Sermon you allude to may reference a man and quote him to push a point, but it is an altogether different story if that man is referred to as a prophet. Shakespear is not. Bill Clinton is not.
Enoch is.

Enoch is not the only one. Numerous other writings are referrenced as authoritive that are not part of your Canon. Will you use the same false comparison to dismiss every one of them as you have done here?
Does Jude's quotation of Enoch mean the entire book is inspired by God or that the quote Jude used is correct because God inspired Jude to write it?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jude does quote from a non-canonical book. That's a fact. Maybe the author of Jude thought it was canonical and maybe he thought the quote was apt and didn't care if it came from a canonical source or not. Nevertheless the church is (and always was) competent to decide the canon of the bible for itself so it did and the church chose more books than 66. That's a fact.
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
908
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hmm, let's try this. Who can tell me where this comes from?

I was small among my brothers,

and the youngest in my father’s house;

I tended my father’s sheep.

2 My hands made a harp;

my fingers fashioned a lyre.

3 And who will tell my Lord?

The Lord himself; it is he who hears.b

4 It was he who sent his messengerc

and took me from my father’s sheep,

and anointed me with his anointing oil.

5 My brothers were handsome and tall,

but the Lord was not pleased with them.

6 I went out to meet the Philistine,d

and he cursed me by his idols.

7 But I drew his own sword;

I beheaded him, and took away disgrace from the people of Israel.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
^^ is Psalm 151
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
908
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Some thoughts on the canon of the Old Testament as it is cited, quoted, and alluded to in the new testament.

The protocanonical books and the New Testament
The absence of any citations from Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles may be reasonably explained by their unsuitability for New Testament purposes, and is further discounted by the non-citation of the two books of Esdras. Abdias, Nahum, and Sophonias, while not directly honoured, are included in the quotations from the other minor Prophets by virtue of the traditional unity of that collection. On the other hand, such frequent terms as "the Scripture", the "Scriptures", "the holy Scriptures", applied in the New Testament to the other sacred writings, would lead us to believe that the latter already formed a definite fixed collection; but, on the other, the reference in St. Luke to "the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms", while demonstrating the fixity of the Torah and the Prophets as sacred groups, does not warrant us in ascribing the same fixity to the third division, the Palestinian-Jewish Hagiographa. If, as seems certain, the exact content of the broader catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures (that comprising the deutero books) cannot be established from the New Testament, a fortiori there is no reason to expect that it should reflect the precise extension of the narrower and Judaistic Canon. We are sure, of course, that all the Hagiographa were eventually, before the death of the last Apostle, divinely committed to the Church as Holy Scripture, but we know this as a truth of faith, and by theological deduction, not from documentary evidence in the New Testament. The latter fact has a bearing against the Protestant claim that Jesus approved and transmitted en bloc an already defined Bible of the Palestinian Synagogue.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Jude does quote from a non-canonical book. That's a fact. Maybe the author of Jude thought it was canonical and maybe he thought the quote was apt and didn't care if it came from a canonical source or not. Nevertheless the church is (and always was) competent to decide the canon of the bible for itself so it did and the church chose more books than 66. That's a fact.
From what I have read, the persons compiling wanted the 66, but Roman politics forced the others into the canon...which is why the other denominations reject those extra books.
Simply put, the Roman church got it wrong.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Many people "hear" things that are not the truth. Documentation of the facts counts for a whole lot more than what one has heard and not documented.
 
Top Bottom