Introduction to the Ecclesiastical books

[Andrew]

It is so sad when someone cannot admit the truth.

(Post 1)


(Post 3)


Again I encourage everyone to read for themselves that both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly points out those books are NOT canonical. Moreover check out the canon lists of Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitier, and Rufinus of Aquileia.

I also encourage everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense, as the quotes above claim, to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level in any way.

It is so sad when someone cannot admit the truth.

(Post 1)


(Post 3)


Again I encourage everyone to read for themselves that both Athanasius and Rufinus clearly points out those books are NOT canonical. Moreover check out the canon lists Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitier, and Rufinus of Aquileia.

I also encourage everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense, as the quotes above state, to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level.

I encourage everyone to read for themselves what Rufinus and Athanasius says in post 30

Athanasius is the 2nd and Rufinus the 3rd paragraph

 

[Origen]

I encourage everyone to read for themselves what Rufinus and Athanasius says in post 30

Athanasius is the 2nd and Rufinus the 3rd paragraph

Good idea.

Rufinus first line:
"There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon..."

Athanasius:
"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical..."

Just as I have repeatedly said both Athanasius and Rufinus CLEARLY states those books are NOT canonical. I encourage everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level in any way.

 

[Andrew]

I've followed this thread and the previous thread on the status of the deuterocanonical books.

It seems to me that ya'll are having the same arguments that have been going on since at least the 3rd Century. Many ante-nicene fathers had their own ideas about what constituted God Breathed Scripture. Then Jerome and Augustine disagreed on the deuteroncanonical books with Jerome finally consenting to include the books but with a preface indicating that are good for study and devotion but shouldn't be held as scripture.

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books."

From the time of Jerome and Augustine there were two "threads" in the church. Some held to Jerome's position and some to Augustine's. and some were a mixture of both. For instance. Pope Gregory the great specifically said that 1 Maccabees isn't Canonical in his commentary on the book of Job. (Book 19, Chapter 34)

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed [1 Macc. 6, 46]

This issue wasn't even settled in the Catholic church at the time of the reformation. Luther's position on the Deuterocannonical books was perfectly fine until after the Council of Trent when the Catholic church elevated the books to "Canonical/Scripture" status. Before Trent there was a sizable minority of Theologians/Bishops/Priest who still held Jerome's position. The vote at Trent to include those books as "Cannon" wasn't unanimous. Sadly, over time Protestants (especially American Evangelicals) have all but abandoned the deutercannonical books, even as devotional/edifying of the church (as Pope Gregory the Great said of 1 Maccabees)

The point of all of this is to show that the status of the Deuterocannonical books has never truly been put to rest. The arguments that ya'll are having are the same ones that have been had through the centuries.

My personal opinion, after studying the matter, is that those particular books aren't God Breathed inerrant Scripture, but are useful in understanding the history and practices of the Jews during the inter-testament period. We should take great solace is the fact that God was taking care of the Jews and unfolding the Gospel story during this time, but we shouldn't assume that everything in those books are 100% accurate and the practices are to be examples and instructions for God's people to follow.

I posted a lists of quotes from Church fathers who beg the differ, anyone who reads Wisdom chapter 2 and does not find it 100% prophetic are in denial, if a prophecy comes true then it's inspired. Also in Timothy we are told that ALL Scripture is useful for MANY reasons, for doctrine, for lessons in godliness etc..

Jerome sided with the sons of the devil (unbelieving rabbis) who convinced him that they (the Christians) have the wrong books and they (the Jews) have the correct books, what a sucker.

I ask you read Wisdom Chapter 2 and get back with me with your thoughts

 

[Andrew]

Good idea.

Rufinus first line:
"There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon..."

Athanasius:
"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical..."

Just as I have repeatedly said both Athanasius and Rufinus CLEARLY states those books are NOT canonical. I encourage everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level in any way.

Canon - for establishing doctrine

Ecclesiastical - testimony of doctrine, lessons in the word of godliness

I NEVER SAID THE ECCLESIASTICAL BOOKS WERE THE SAME AS CANON

So when you point out over and over and over again that they said "are not consider canonical" I am NOT disagreeing with them!

I am only saying that BOTH "CLASSES" contain HOLY SCRIPTURE as I have shown that MANY Church Fathers such as ORIGEN TESTIFY

 

[Andrew]

WISDOM CHAPTER 2


For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:

“Brief and troubled is our lifetime;
there is no remedy for our dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.

For by mere chance were we born, and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been; Because the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts, and when this is quenched, our body will be ashes and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.

Even our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will recall our deeds. So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and will be dispersed like a mist, pursued by the sun’s rays and overpowered by its heat.

For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow;
and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.

Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are here, and make use of creation with youthful zest.

Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no springtime blossom pass us by; let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.

Let no meadow be free from our wantonness; everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment, for this is our portion, and this our lot.

Let us oppress the righteous poor; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time.

But let our strength be our norm of righteousness; for weakness proves itself useless.

Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.

He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of God.

To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways.

He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end.

For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.

Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense for holiness
nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who are allied with him experience it

 

[Origen]

I NEVER SAID THE ECCLESIASTICAL BOOKS WERE THE SAME AS CANON

Again I never said you did. You said they were equal and I am asking people to think about that claim. I encourage everyone to ask themselves if it makes sense to think that non-canonical and canonical writings are equal, on the same level in any way.

So when you point out over and over and over again that they said "are not consider canonical" I am NOT disagreeing with them!

Yet you still miss the point.

I am only saying that BOTH "CLASSES" contain HOLY SCRIPTURE as I have shown that MANY Church Fathers such as ORIGEN TESTIFY

You have only shown what I have said time and time again. Some believed them to be scripture and others did not.

 

[Lanman87]

I posted a lists of quotes from Church fathers who beg the differ,

Different church fathers quoted many different things as "scripture". There were varying opinions.

The council of Trent says; "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

Do you hold this position?

 

[Andrew]

Different church fathers quoted many different things as "scripture". There were varying opinions.

The council of Trent says; "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

Do you hold this position?

Well this dude called them canon as well, it appears that some had two classes and others included both classes as one canon.

The 16th Century Church obviously didn't want protestants attending

Augustine of Hippo Enchiridion of Christian Doctrine Book 2 par 12-13 (354-430 ad)

“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,-those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.


13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:-Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles -these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:-Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:-Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul-one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.

 

[Lanman87]

The 16th Century Church obviously didn't want protestants attending

You avoided the question? Do you hold the Catholic position of the Council of Trent that the books knows as deuterocannonical books are part of the Biblical canon?

 

[Andrew]

You avoided the question? Do you hold the Catholic position of the Council of Trent that the books knows as deuterocannonical books are part of the Biblical canon?

I do

 

[Lanman87]

I do

Then why are you trying to differentiate between Ecclesiastical and Canonical?

 

[Andrew]

Then why are you trying to differentiate between Ecclesiastical and Canonical?

Ecclesiastical are known by other names, one being Deuterocanonical, another being the so called "Apocrypha" which is an untrue term because true Apocrypha works weren't read in the churches

 

[Lanman87]

Ecclesiastical are known by other names, one being Deuterocanonical, another being the so called "Apocrypha" which is an untrue term because true Apocrypha works weren't read in the churches

In post #44 you said

Canon - for establishing doctrine​

​

Ecclesiastical - testimony of doctrine, lessons in the word of godliness​

​

I NEVER SAID THE ECCLESIASTICAL BOOKS WERE THE SAME AS CANON​

​

So when you point out over and over and over again that they said "are not consider canonical" I am NOT disagreeing with them!​

​

I am only saying that BOTH "CLASSES" contain HOLY SCRIPTURE as I have shown that MANY Church Fathers such as ORIGEN TESTIFY​

It is my understanding that The Catholic church, by it's statements at the council of Trent, do consider them both part of the same canon. Am I wrong?

 

[Andrew]

In post #44 you said

Canon - for establishing doctrine​

​

Ecclesiastical - testimony of doctrine, lessons in the word of godliness​

​

I NEVER SAID THE ECCLESIASTICAL BOOKS WERE THE SAME AS CANON​

​

So when you point out over and over and over again that they said "are not consider canonical" I am NOT disagreeing with them!​

​

I am only saying that BOTH "CLASSES" contain HOLY SCRIPTURE as I have shown that MANY Church Fathers such as ORIGEN TESTIFY​

It is my understanding that The Catholic church, by it's statements at the council of Trent, do consider them both part of the same canon. Am I wrong?

I go by the original name "Ecclesiastical", Catholics call them "Deuterocanonical", I have no problem with the Catholic term just as long as they hold to the position that they are not to be used to establish doctrine (which is Canon), but obviously they did by creating the doctrine of Purgatory and selling of Indulgences... so again, I prefer Ecclesiastical, and they belong in the HOLY BIBLE where they had been up until the 19th century, making all Christians before look like idiots like me

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

 

[Lanman87]

go by the original name "Ecclesiastical", Catholics call them "Deuterocanonical", I have no problem with the Catholic term just as long as they hold to the position that they are not to be used to establish doctrine (which is Canon), but obviously they did by creating the doctrine of Purgatory and selling of Indulgences... so again, I prefer Ecclesiastical, and they belong in the HOLY BIBLE where they had been up until the 19th century, making all Christians before look like idiots like me

So now I'm really confused. You said you agree with Trent that they are all Canon and now you are saying they shouldn't be used to establish doctrine. It is my understand that Trent removes any distinction between the traditional Canonical books and the Deuter books.

 

[Andrew]

So now I'm really confused. You said you agree with Trent that they are all Canon and now you are saying they shouldn't be used to establish doctrine. It is my understand that Trent removes any distinction between the traditional Canonical books and the Deuter books.

Canon or not they are Holy Scripture

 

[Lamb]

Canon or not they are Holy Scripture

You must have a different definition of "holy scripture" than most people then?

 

[Andrew]

You must have a different definition of "holy scripture" than most people then?

Post 8

 

[Josiah]

You must have a different definition of "holy scripture" than most people then?

LAMM -


MY personal experience (not that that's saying anything) is that typically MODERN, 21 century Christians consider "Christian Scriptures" and "canonical writings"to be the same thing. I have zero evidence for that, just my experience. But this is a fairly new view. But I think it would be wrong to impose upon ancient peoples. And... well.... this whole issue is kinda complicated and entirely a matter of Tradition that is not perfect.

"Scripture" (grafi) simply means anything written. The word literally means "wtitten." And it was sometimes used that way among Christians in the first centuries; it did NOT necessarily mean DIVINE writing, it did not necessarily mean something even that individual regarded as inerrant, fully canonical, DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God. They referred to the writings of each other (even heretics) as "grafi." And of coures "holy" just means "set aside" or "used for religious reasons." Lutherans refer to the Holy Cross - that does not mean that piece of wood is the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God.... or is normative in the formation and evaluation of dogma.


It's not easy to determine exactly when some "grafi" is embraced as CANONICAL. The word comes from epistemology and means a "measuring stick" some objective, "concrete" unchangable RULE that can be used to determine truthfulness and correctness. I put up a new fense... the HOA here says a fence can be no more than 6 feet high.... my neighbor says it's over that limit... so we agree to use our Sears Measuring Tape to see. In that case, the measuring tape is our canon. Now, we may ALSO use my shoe (which I hold is 12 inches long) just to confirm that but then the shoe would not be the canon but used to support that (what in epistemology is called deuterocanon). The Fathers never really address this - at least clearly and directly... no church meeting ever did until the 15th Century.... so it can be difficult to determine. We often have to look at how they USE these "writings" - are they just gleaning information? Are they using it as deuterocanon? Are they holding up a dispute to the WORD of a BOOK (and affirming "thus says the Lord") and using it canonically? Frankly, it's not easy to tell.... and OFTEN the Fathers (just like the NT) only alludes "Writings" So no, there's just no evidence I know of that even suggests that "Scripture" and "Canonical" meant the same thing.


And until maybe 400 years ago, there were LEVELS of canonicity. This was (and still is) true among the Jews and their "grafi" - the Books of Moses are most canonical, under that the Prophets/Histories and under that the Wisdom Books (Psalms, Job, etc). And we really can't determine the level of the books Andrew MAY be referring to and the Anglcian Apocrypha that Nathan fights for (Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articlesof the Church of England...an ODD thing for an Assemblies of God guy to fight for). In the New Testament, there was the top level of 21 books and then 7 or 8 on the lower level (lower were James, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation and sometimes the Epistle to the Leodiceans) and there's more in those early days: The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus, and sometimes more. When Luther early on thought that James sometimes contradicted Romans, this was NO PROBLEM - he simply noted that Romans is more canonical than James (ad oddly, even the Catholics did not question that). And Lamm.... the Council of Trent did NOT address this!!!! It officially, formally, authoritatively stated WHAT books that singular denomination now declared to be "Scripture" but PURPOSELY evaded the whole issue of canonicity, it said NOTHING about "canon" just what writings it hereby adopted as the "Scripture" or Bible of the singular Catholic Church denomination. Of course, Lutherans evaded even more - our Confessions don't even list the books!! But AFTER the Reformation (well, starting in the late 16th Century) that issue comes up.... and Protestants tend to agree with Luther, Calvin and the Church of England and held that 66 books are CANONICAL (contrary to what many think, Calvin listed only 66 books NOT because he opposed others but because he ONLY listed what was fully canonical). But Luther and the Church of England after him listed the 66 PLUS various DEUTEROcanonical ones commonly used in those lands (more were used in England than in Germany, both more than in Italy and Spain) but as DEUTERO not as fully canonical, as HELPFUL words of men not inerrant normative words of GOD. But this changed: Although the Catholic Church STILL has not officially declared that all it's unique set of books are fully and equally canonical (it STILL has not so declared and Catholics often STILL refer to "canonical" and "deuterocanonical" books) increaseingly, this distinction has mostly been lost in Catholicism in the past 400 years or so..... I think most Catholic pastors would tell you all 73 books are "eaual" in every way (even though the CC has never officially said so).. We still see the NT over the OT (the NT more canonical than the OT) but the divisions within the books has been lost. Ask most Lutheran pastors if Romans is MORE canonical than James and you'll probably get a "no - they are equal" although Luther would have disagreed.


Andrew still hasn't told us what "grafi" beyond the 66 are to be regarded as fully canonical (and thus equal to the others). He goes back and forth between saying they are equally canonical and that they are not; he says they (whatever writings "they" are, he won't say) are "equal" however. It took over a year and COUNTLESS requests, but Nathan FINALLY did. He fights for the specific books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (destroying all his stress on the ECF and the Catholic diocese meetings he keeps pointing to - NONE of those embraced the set of books Nathan insists is the correct one). But Nathan neglects to point out the Church of England accepted only 66 as canonical - the rest are "grafi" and NOT canonical... he just ignores that.


I hope this helps...


Blessings!


- Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

the Council of Trent did NOT address this!!!! It officially, formally, authoritatively stated WHAT books that singular denomination now declared to be "Scripture" but PURPOSELY evaded the whole issue of canonicity

I thought the council of Trent specifically called the deutero books canonical

From EWTN

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and 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, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.