|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Books Removed from the Bible 1684
|
cdn guy
Apprentice
# 7548
|
Posted
So I learned that 14 books where removed from the bible in 1684. If this was the word of God for over 1600 years why did it stop being the word of God? Are some words of God more important than others?
Posts: 8 | From: canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Which books? And by whom?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Major oversimplification. What the person who said that must have been referring to is that many Protestant denominations follow the Jews in which books they believe to be canonical, and the RC (and Orthodox, I think) include the Apocrypha. This was not a case of "let's chop the books out," in fact if I recall correctly Luther included the Apocrypha in his translation though not as of the same rank as the canonical books, rather as "useful and good reading," that sort of thing.
It is actually possible to have a difference of opinion on the extent of the canon without hating on the other side. Seriously. Both sides have reasonable reasons for why they do what they do.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Oh, the Apocrypha. Of course - should have thought of it meself.
I think Lamb Chopped is right.
Bits of the Apocrypha (Wisdom, Baruch, Maccabees) do turn up in mainstream lectionaries e.g. the Revised Common Lectionary from time to time.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
So I learned that 14 books where removed from the bible in 1684.
Who did you learn this from? Which denomination are you talking about? And which books were they that were removed?
I consider myself reasonably well-informed and I am unaware of any such fact, and believe it largely incompatible with what I do know.
My first thought is that you're thinking about the Apocrypha but I don't think any decisions were made about the Bible in English in 1684, and the Roman Catholic Apocrypha aren't 14 books.
Please elaborate.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
There is also an alternative reading for those of a more protestant disposition.
(cross post - reply to Bishops Finger)
[ 24. May 2017, 21:52: Message edited by: balaam ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
So I learned that 14 books where removed from the bible in 1684.
The KJV apocrypha is 14 books.
During Cromwell's regime, the Westminster Confession did exclude it from the canon (but that's 1646). And it's inclusion in printed bibles from then is patchy.
Note in any case this is only the English (protestant) bibles.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Apocrypha tended to be included in printed English Bibles until the early 19th century and I've read that one of the reasons the practice dropped off was down to printing costs when sending Bibles off to the mission field across the Empire.
That doesn't mean that Anglicans and Non-conformists considered the Apocrypha to be canonical, of course.
When it comes to the canon, I understand that the Ethiopian Orthodox havr more canonical books than anyone else - 72 I think - including The Book of Enoch which no other Church recognises as canonical as far as I am aware.
Canonicity is a tricky thing. What if Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans were to be authenticated tomorrow beyond any shadow of doubt. Would it have to be included in the canon?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
It's a good thing that the apocrypha is still around. The book of Tobit is the most delightful story, probably an ancient Persian legend tweaked to tell the tale of a righteous Jew and his family. We enacted it at a family camp and it was tremendous fun.
Of course that is not how books are chosen for the canon.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In point of fact, there has never really been an ecumenical decision on what books are in the New Testament, though the earliest list came from Tertullian in the second century.
Under the Lutheran tradition, the true Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible only provides the bed on which the Word of God lays.
Several books have not been included in the canon because they are contradictory to the rest of Scripture or they detract from the true Word.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cdn guy
Apprentice
# 7548
|
Posted
Ok. On reading it again it refers to the Biblical apocrypha. 1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The rest of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
The Songs of the 3 Holy children
The history of Susana
bel and the dragon
The prayer for Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
My question still stands. If the Bible is "the word of God" why where these books good for so long and then not good.
Posts: 8 | From: canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Are mousethief coolers and popcorn allowed in Purg?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Ah yes, the story of Susanna! I attended a girls' school (UK) which had a regular and serious assembly every morning, with prayer and a reading. One week we had the serialised story of Susanna - with us all hanging on every word and debating the story from day to day! I still wonder what the person choosing the reading thought they were trying to achieve; exciting dirty stories in school assembly! I bet many still remember it, though - 40+ years later.
(good background for the history of art, I suppose)
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Ok. On reading it again it refers to the Biblical apocrypha. 1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The rest of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
The Songs of the 3 Holy children
The history of Susana
bel and the dragon
The prayer for Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
My question still stands. If the Bible is "the word of God" why where these books good for so long and then not good.
I think this has been answered already-- and there's probably a longer thread in dead horses-- but to clarify:
The early church canonized the NT thru a series of church councils in the first few centuries of Christianity. While this was a process that reflected an evolving consensus, it was a fairly clear process. While there are always a few dissenting voices here & there, this canon is virtually the same in all branches of Christianity.
Your question has to do with the OT canon. The early church wasn't attempting to reopen the decision of canonicity, but was simply wanting to include the OT as part of the authoritative Scripture. The problem is, there were a couple of different ways to answer the question, "what is the OT canon?". Some branches of the Church used the Hebrew Bible as the template, others use the Septuagint-- an early Greek translation which was the Bible used (and quoted) by Jesus. One could probably make a good argument for either rubric. In practice, it's not a difference that comes up all that often.
So basically it's primarily an academic debate. Every now and then you'll find someone on one side or the other of the dispute who uses it as an excuse to bash the other side or to argue against the authority of the canon as a whole. I'm guessing you've run across such a person. IMHO, it's needless pot-stirring.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Cliffdweller--please name the ecumenical councils that canonized the New Testament.
On the Western side, the only council that attempted to canonize the New Testament was the Council of Trent, but that council is not recognized by any of the protestant churches to say nothing by the Eastern Church.
It had long been assumed the Hebrew Bible was set by the rabbinic Council of Jamnia around 70 CE, but that is being questioned today. There does not appear to be any formal canonization of the Hebrew Bible either.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
GG--
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's a good thing that the apocrypha is still around. The book of Tobit is the most delightful story, probably an ancient Persian legend tweaked to tell the tale of a righteous Jew and his family. We enacted it at a family camp and it was tremendous fun.
Of course that is not how books are chosen for the canon.
Wouldn't it be cool if they were, though?
{Pictures an ancient ecumenical council, with everyone in costume and over-acting.}
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
cdn guy--
You might find the Early Christian Writings site useful.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Cliffdweller--please name the ecumenical councils that canonized the New Testament.
On the Western side, the only council that attempted to canonize the New Testament was the Council of Trent, but that council is not recognized by any of the protestant churches to say nothing by the Eastern Church.
It had long been assumed the Hebrew Bible was set by the rabbinic Council of Jamnia around 70 CE, but that is being questioned today. There does not appear to be any formal canonization of the Hebrew Bible either.
That was kinda my point.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your question has to do with the OT canon. The early church wasn't attempting to reopen the decision of canonicity, but was simply wanting to include the OT as part of the authoritative Scripture. The problem is, there were a couple of different ways to answer the question, "what is the OT canon?". Some branches of the Church used the Hebrew Bible as the template, others use the Septuagint-- an early Greek translation which was the Bible used (and quoted) by Jesus. One could probably make a good argument for either rubric. In practice, it's not a difference that comes up all that often.
Actually nobody used the Hebrew canon until Jerome, who tried to convince the RCC to jettison the Apocrypha (books in the LXX but not the Hebrew canon). He rather refused to translate from anything other than Hebrew, so the Vulgate contains the MT books translated by Jerome, and the Apocryphal books in the earlier, pre-Jerome translation.
The first Christian canon without them comes with the Protestants. The Catholic and Orthodox OTs disagree based on which of the extant LXX traditions the pre-Jerome translator had to hand, versus which ones were preserved in the eastern church. It clearly wasn't considered a terribly important point to reconcile. (Think on that a second, ye bible-worshipers, and weep.) Even in the angriest finger-pointing and rock-throwing between the Catholics and Orthodox, I don't think the difference in the OT canons was ever trotted out to show the other team was of the devil. It just didn't matter. Nor does it still. But neither side was going to jettison the deuts and go to a MT canon.
[ 25. May 2017, 03:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
I presume the MT canon is the Masoretic text, and not something you sent back in time?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cdn guy
Apprentice
# 7548
|
Posted
Maybe I didn't explain this well. I heard alot growing up that the Bible was the word of God. If you are adding and subtracting from the Bible are you not changing the word of God?
Are you saying that different denominations have a different Bible? If they can pick and chose whats in their Bible can I do the same?Sort of let God or the Holy spirit guide me. Am I answering my own question here but do different denomination need to hear a different message?
Posts: 8 | From: canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I feel like we've answered the "different sets of books" question. Maybe your question is really "what do we mean when we say it's the 'Word of God'?" or "what does it mean when we say it's 'inspired by God'?"
fair warning: you'll get multiple answers to those questions too
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Maybe I didn't explain this well. I heard alot growing up that the Bible was the word of God. If you are adding and subtracting from the Bible are you not changing the word of God?
Are you saying that different denominations have a different Bible? If they can pick and chose whats in their Bible can I do the same?Sort of let God or the Holy spirit guide me. Am I answering my own question here but do different denomination need to hear a different message?
cliffdweller:
quote:
Every now and then you'll find someone on one side or the other of the dispute who uses it as an excuse to bash the other side or to argue against the authority of the canon as a whole. I'm guessing you've run across such a person. IMHO, it's needless pot-stirring.
Different denominations/churches are...different. It doesn't take a few more or less minor books for differences to be apparent. Would the inclusion or exclusion of Judith or Sirach fundamentally change one's faith? Probably not. Would disagreement over Christus Victor, ransom theory, or penal substitutionary atonement? More likely and those are variously covered in the canons accepted by about everyone.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Can anyone say what happened in 1684 that is relevant to this? I can't think of anything.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Maybe I didn't explain this well. I heard alot growing up that the Bible was the word of God. If you are adding and subtracting from the Bible are you not changing the word of God?
It has been pointed out to me that, roughly speaking, the more a denomination talks in terms of the Bible as the "Word of God", and insists on the extent of the canon (sometimes to the extent of referring specifically to "66 books" in its confession of faith), the more likely it is to use and distribute mere portions of that canonical whole (e.g. gospels and New Testaments)...
This highlights the practical reality that we all have our "canon within the canon", and on a very day-to-day basis, points up the fact that no canon has been determined by a deus ex machina - the Bible wasn't handed down to us on Mt Sinai like the 10 commandments - but rather has been recognised by the Church over the ages.
Historically speaking, as I understand it the dissemination of the Scriptures without the deutero-canonical books is the exception rather than the rule - it's just that the really big disseminators (notably the 19th century Bible Societies) left them out.
I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, but I think referring to the Bible as the Word of God is an unhelpful - and unbiblical - shortcut.
(by the way, speaking for a moment in my hostly capacity, this thread may well end up either in Kerygmania or Dead Horses, depending on how y'all run with it).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'God or the holy spirit'?
What were you taught, CDN guy?
I think you'll find that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are both God ... As is God the Son.
Didn't these churches that taught you that the Bible is the 'Word of God' also teach you about the Trinity?
Meanwhile, I once attended a study weekend led by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, an Orthodox bishop here in the UK. It was all about the Orthodox use of scripture.
It was fascinating and although, as a relatively conservative Protestant, I found a great deal of overlap, there were things that puzzled me and I spent a great deal of time bowling him awkward and hypothetical questions about the canon.
We've met since and he chuckled about it.
The obsession about what should be 'in' and what should be 'out' and this, that or the other translation is very much a Western Christian concern. The Orthodox put far less store on such things.
They roll differently and operate differently. So, for instance, in the first Orthodox sermons I heard I was puzzled - and shocked to some extent - to hear scripture, hymnody, hagiography and iconography all deployed as if they were of equal weight and authority.
Of course, from an Orthodox perspective they are all aspects and facets of Holy Tradition so they don't tend to make the kind of fine distinctions between these elements in the way Western - and particularly Protestant Christians do.
As far as the Apocrypha goes, you'll find readings from the Apocrypha in Anglican lectionaries but it's left to the scruples of each parish whether to use them or not.
You could spend a lifetime in low church Anglicanism without being aware that the Apocrypha exists.
As a rough rule of thumb, though, whilst many Anglicans and Lutherans would use or refer to the Apocrypha, it wouldn't occupy the same 'status' in their thinking as it would the canonical books.
To all intents and purposes, I tend to think that most Churches and traditions operate with a de facto canon within a canon ...
Arguably, and simplistically, I'd suggest that Orthodox and RCs put more stress in the Gospels whereas Protestants tend to major in the Pauline epistles with those OT texts and passages most pertinent to Pauline concerns.
That's a very broad brush generalisation but I think it holds.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Ok. On reading it again it refers to the Biblical apocrypha. 1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The rest of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
The Songs of the 3 Holy children
The history of Susana
bel and the dragon
The prayer for Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
My question still stands. If the Bible is "the word of God" why where these books good for so long and then not good.
I think this has been answered already-- and there's probably a longer thread in dead horses-- but to clarify:
The early church canonized the NT thru a series of church councils in the first few centuries of Christianity. While this was a process that reflected an evolving consensus, it was a fairly clear process. While there are always a few dissenting voices here & there, this canon is virtually the same in all branches of Christianity.
Your question has to do with the OT canon. The early church wasn't attempting to reopen the decision of canonicity, but was simply wanting to include the OT as part of the authoritative Scripture. The problem is, there were a couple of different ways to answer the question, "what is the OT canon?". Some branches of the Church used the Hebrew Bible as the template, others use the Septuagint-- an early Greek translation which was the Bible used (and quoted) by Jesus. One could probably make a good argument for either rubric. In practice, it's not a difference that comes up all that often.
So basically it's primarily an academic debate. Every now and then you'll find someone on one side or the other of the dispute who uses it as an excuse to bash the other side or to argue against the authority of the canon as a whole. I'm guessing you've run across such a person. IMHO, it's needless pot-stirring.
As Jesus only ever quoted from the Tanakh, how do we know it was the Apocrypha containing Septuagint version?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Can anyone say what happened in 1684 that is relevant to this? I can't think of anything.
I thought it was just me being ignorant and so I tried looking online to see what I can find. About all that is there was some conspiracy site talking about the Roman Catholic church dropping these books.
I couldn't work out what the date had to do with anything. Very mysterious.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As Jesus only ever quoted from the Tanakh, how do we know it was the Apocrypha containing Septuagint version?
Are you sure about that? Seems to me that there are quite a lot of allusions to things that aren't in the OT, such as the sacrilege in the temple which appears in the Maccabees.
Matt. 6:19-20 sounds a lot like Ecclesiasticus 29:11-13
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Maybe I didn't explain this well. I heard alot growing up that the Bible was the word of God. If you are adding and subtracting from the Bible are you not changing the word of God?
Are you saying that different denominations have a different Bible? If they can pick and chose whats in their Bible can I do the same?Sort of let God or the Holy spirit guide me. Am I answering my own question here but do different denomination need to hear a different message?
As others have said, this really comes down to what you mean by "the word of God". And coming from a background where this type of teaching was common. As a rule, in church groups where this is taught, it means the 66 books of the bible, excluding any apocryphal or pseudopigraphal texts.
And what it usually means is that these are the books that are considered authoritative. Which in itself normally means that there are passages within them to support a particular view. Even within these, there are usually multiple perspectives and interpretations. It depends on what translation you use, and so what documents were available to the translators. Also, it depends what the message the translators wanted to make from their translation.
So the more you delve into this, the more you realise it is as solid as custard*. And against this, there are also other texts that are considered "of spiritual value". So there is an acknowledgement that these are also very important writings, that need to be considered more as stories, or as writings with issues that do not find support elsewhere in the bible. But, in the end, you need to understand and interpret each book as itself.
In the end, yes, there is an arbitrary line drawn somewhere. But the position of the line is not the important thing - the important thing is why you want a line in the first place.
*Solid if you hit it, liquid if you try to grasp the solidity.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Cliffdweller--please name the ecumenical councils that canonized the New Testament.
I suspect that the myth of NT canonisation by council is attributable partly to a wishfulness on the part of some Christians that it were true even though it isn't, and partly to Dan Brown.
[ 25. May 2017, 07:35: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
There is a terminological issue here, too, in that what Roman Catholics call small-a apocryphal, Protestants call the Pseudepigrapha, and what Protestants call the capital-A Apocrypha, Roman Catholics refer to as deuterocanonical.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is apparently a 1684 folio edition of the KJV of the bible in English, but I'm still not seeing the connection between this and the conspiracy site's claim that the "Vatican removed books in 1684".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually nobody used the Hebrew canon until Jerome, who tried to convince the RCC to jettison the Apocrypha (books in the LXX but not the Hebrew canon). He rather refused to translate from anything other than Hebrew, so the Vulgate contains the MT books translated by Jerome, and the Apocryphal books in the earlier, pre-Jerome translation.
Bits of Daniel are in Aramaic in the original.
Christian apologists before Jerome had noted that when arguing with Judaism there was no point in citing passages from books that Judaism didn't consider authoritative.
That was AIUI Jerome's primary justification for excluding the deutercanonical books.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, but was that when the books Anglicans now call Apocrypha were removed? My understanding is that these books were in the original AV but in their own section; they have either remained there since, or from an edition in the 1660s been omitted entirely. I can't find anything which makes 1684 a special date.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Not sure which site you are looking at here (I tend to favour a better class of conspiracy site!) but they appear to have it the wrong way round - i.e. the KJV included the Deuterocanonicals in 1611 but the wicked Vatican suppressed them.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I can't find anything which makes 1684 a special date.
As far as I can understand, the folio of 1648 didn't include these books, whereas earlier editions did.
I think the date is a bit of a red herring, to be honest.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As posted before, I think that in modern, practical terms, this debate dates back to the Apocrypha controversy of the early 1800s. quote:
The British and Foreign Bible Society... dropped the Apocrypha from its bibles published in English in 1804.
So they were there before that.
In France the protestant chaplaincy recently got the French Bible Society to publish an ecumenical (i.e. here, protestant-catholic*) edition of the Bible, including the deutero-canonical books (in a separate section as was traditionally the case for Bible Societies before 1804).
Perceived as a rare evangelical in a sea of non-evangelicals in the upper echelons of the protestant chaplaincy world, my voice in favour (on condition of the separate section) was probably quite decisive in this project going ahead.
It was influenced a) by discussions on the Ship† b) the very practical consideration that the Jehovah's Witnesses had recently been granted prison chaplain status.
I preferred us to be able to say, sincerely, to inmates that we had "the same bible" as the Catholics than have three competing versions of the Bible circulating in prison, and to throw my lot in with the Catholics rather than the JWs.
Thus suggesting, I suppose, that there is more going on in these debates than deciding on the exact confines of the "Word of God".
==
*As I understand it the Orthodox don't agree among themselves as to the precise scope of the canon, for reasons Gamaliel has hinted at above.
†So be careful what you post. It might have a real-life impact!
[ 25. May 2017, 08:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think Kaplan's right to make those distinctions - and yes, Eutychus, English Bibles tended to include the Apocrypha in a separate section prior to the early 19th century.
As I mentioned upthread, the reasons the practice was dropped had more to do with shipping costs to the colonies than anything else ...
On the Orthodox disagreeing among themselves as to the precise limits of the canon ... I think it's more that those limits are more elastic within Orthodoxy rather than there are bearded heirarchs cold-shouldering one another over which books to include ...
They tend to fall out over other issues rather than that one ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the date thing, I rather suspect the OP has confused 1684 with the Westminster Confession and reforms/changes brought about in 1648 prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth in England.
Which suggests to me that cdn guy has been talking to some neo-Calvinist or Presbyterian type in the USA or else someone opposed to such positions who feels the deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books shouldn't have been removed ...
As if the Westminster Confession and what the Puritans did during that period was somehow binding on all Christians in all places and at all times.
Some neo-Calvinists treat the Westminster Confession as the Orthodox and RCs treat Nicea or Chalcedon ... or Trent ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As Jesus only ever quoted from the Tanakh, how do we know it was the Apocrypha containing Septuagint version?
Are you sure about that? Seems to me that there are quite a lot of allusions to things that aren't in the OT, such as the sacrilege in the temple which appears in the Maccabees.
Matt. 6:19-20 sounds a lot like Ecclesiasticus 29:11-13
Well said, but I'm being pedantic about quotes here. He only quoted from the Tanakh, 90% Septuagint Greek - even in the synagogue - and 10% Masoretic Hebrew apparently and a smidgin of Targum Aramaic.
%s
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cdn guy:
Maybe I didn't explain this well. I heard alot growing up that the Bible was the word of God. If you are adding and subtracting from the Bible are you not changing the word of God?
What does it mean to call the bible 'the word of God', and what's the justification for it?
The bible itself doesn't actually refer to itself as the word of God, though the phrase does appear in a number of places. There are different words that get translated as 'word' in English.
The Hebrew word "Dabar" refers generally to prophecy. AFAIK It has quite an immediate meaning, so rather than being general words for all time, they are specific words into a specific situation and time.
In Greek, you have Rhema and Logos. Rhema pretty much just means 'sayings', but Logos is more broad and philosophical.
I don't think it naturally follows that when the Bible talks about 'the word of God' it is talking about itself. In particular, in John 1, the 'logos' is obviously Christ. So, clearly, in scripture, in that passage, the 'word of God' is Christ, not the bible. In other places, it refers to prophecy, the commandments, and so on, but as used in English by many people today, a blanket 'the bible is the word of God' misses a lot of that nuance.
What does that mean for the deuterocanonical books? Well, it means that which books end up in different versions of the bible isn't such a black/white in/out wordofgod/notwordofgod thing. Primarily, scripture is the words of people. But behind those words, we can glimpse the word of God. But it has to go in that order. The books were written by certain people living in a certain culture and time. The bible is not the same as the Muslim Qu'ran, which Muslims believe was dicated word for word by God. That's not how Christians should ever see the bible, though some lapse into talking about it that way.
The word 'canon' means 'reed' (or, for us, paper), and referred to the collection of books that were useful to be read out loud in the gatherings of Christians. The decisions as to which books made the canon wasn't so much about which books were good or bad, but which were useful to read out loud in meetings.
You may also be interested to discover that there are in fact many different canons. Many more than just the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. There are variations within those. Check out this link to find out which books were in the Ethiopian, Syriac, Hebrew and Samaritan canons too.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In point of fact, there has never really been an ecumenical decision on what books are in the New Testament, though the earliest list came from Tertullian in the second century.
What about the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 397 and 418? OK not any of the Seven General Ecumenical Councils but there are pretty clear Councils affirming the NT Canon
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The Articles of Religion set out in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer('the XXXIX Articles') states the following in Article VI;
'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation . . . .In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and NewTestament, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. (These are listed.) And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life nd instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine . . .'(There follows a list of the Apocryphal books).
So there appears no reason why in the Church of England the Apocrypha should not be read 'for example of life and instruction of manners'. The are simply no-authoritative on questions of doctrine, and to believe their contend is not necessary for salvation. Whether to believe everything written in the Canonical books is so necessary is another matter.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Sorry for typos in my last post; I clicked on 'add reply' too early.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Matt Black, that was the NT canon, not the deutero-canonical / Apocryphal 'inter-testamental' books.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You may also be interested to discover that there are in fact many different canons. Many more than just the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. There are variations within those. Check out this link to find out which books were in the Ethiopian, Syriac, Hebrew and Samaritan canons too.
My edition of the New Revised Standard Version has a list of which books are canonical in which denominations. The categories are:
1) Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles
2) Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles, not in the Roman Catholic canon
3) In the Slavonic Bible and the Vulgate Appendix
4) In an appendix to the Greek Bible.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Matt Black, that was the NT canon, not the deutero-canonical / Apocryphal 'inter-testamental' books.
Kaplan's post to which I was responding referred to the NT Canon
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Matt Black, that was the NT canon, not the deutero-canonical / Apocryphal 'inter-testamental' books.
If you trace the discussion back, you'll see that was the point. I said the NT canon was established thru church councils, but there was no attempt in the early Church to renegotiate the OT canon, but simply to reaffirm the Jewish canon as part of our canon as well-- which then begged the question "which Jewish canon?". That comment was meant to focus us on the OT canon (altho really, I was trying to dismiss the debate as an academic discussion that gets highjacked by pot-stirrers) but as always, that offhand remark led us down a couple of rabbit trails.
[ 25. May 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, fair enough Matt Black and Cliffdweller, more close reading required on my part.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
