Thread: Books Removed from the Bible 1684 Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020193
Posted by cdn guy (# 7548) on
:
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?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Which books? And by whom?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IJ
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
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
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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?
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
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
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by cdn guy (# 7548) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Are mousethief coolers and popcorn allowed in Purg?
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
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)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.}
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
cdn guy--
You might find the Early Christian Writings site useful.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
I presume the MT canon is the Masoretic text, and not something you sent back in time?
Posted by cdn guy (# 7548) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Can anyone say what happened in 1684 that is relevant to this? I can't think of anything.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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".
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
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.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Sorry for typos in my last post; I clicked on 'add reply' too early.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Matt Black, that was the NT canon, not the deutero-canonical / Apocryphal 'inter-testamental' books.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, fair enough Matt Black and Cliffdweller, more close reading required on my part.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
There are somewhat reasonable arguments against the inclusion of the Apocrypha, and really, really bad arguments.
1) The argument I read is that the apocrypha books, by in large, were written in Greek, whereas the Old Testament books, were originally written in Hebrew. One could claim that books written in the language of God's people (Israel), could claim priority over books written in a foreign language, of course, the problem is that one could make the same argument against the entire New Testament.
2) Another argument is that St Jerome thought these books shouldn't be included as equal to the OT books, of course, the issue then is why is St Jerome the ultimate authority on all things scripture?
3) Really bad arguments I have heard are:
a) The Apocrypha is full of strange and crazy stories, Answer: Like Ezekiel and his strange creatures (chapter 1)
b) The Apocryphal books like the Maccabees are too violent, Answer: As opposed to Joshua and Judges?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think the thing is that you don't have to have a rule where you have a consensus. AFAIK there is no Orthodox pronouncement because there is no dispute and the Roman Catholic Church only made a pronouncement because the Protestants were denying that the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture. As a GLA, I agree with Jerome, but I don't regard the absence of a definitive pronouncement as being a 'Gotcha'. The first three hundred years of Christianity didn't have a definitive pronouncement on The Incarnation but we don't think any the worse of it on that account.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
1) The argument I read is that the apocrypha books, by in large, were written in Greek, whereas the Old Testament books, were originally written in Hebrew.
Several centuries ago the only texts we had of the apocryphal books were in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have fragments of some apocryphal books, including Tobit, in Hebrew.
One reason the Reformers wanted to get rid of the Apocrypha is that there is a passage in Maccabees which appears to support the doctrine of Purgatory. It tells of Jewish soldiers killed in battle who were discovered to have non-Jewish talismans with them. The Jewish leaders had the surviving Jews make atonement for the sins of the dead. (I have read the passage in the past, but I can't locate it right now.
Moo
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Without wishing to derail this thread, there's some fun to be had in discussing what books one thinks should be removed from the Bible, perhaps in order to make it a bit more 'user friendly', rather than to water down the general message of salvation.
IJ
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
As I heard the story the situation was that the Septuagint was translated into Greek for in effect a secular commission which wanted a collection of Hebrew literature. As a result the LXX included books or part books that would not have been recognised as Scripture by stricter Jews.
The LXX then became common among 'Diaspora' Jews, those living outside Israel and often not fluent in Biblical Hebrew, but fluent in the Greek 'Koine' which was "Everybody's second language" in the Mediterranean world - a 'basic Greek' similar to the basic English of the Bible Societies "Good News Version" which was aimed initially at people in India and African countries where English was "Everybody's second language".
As the Christian mission spread to non-Jews the LXX became the common version used by Gentile converts. I understand that given there was already some question about the books, as suggested above, Protestants did tend to reject them when they found that some questionable RCC practices were only supported by these questionable writings.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What about the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 397 and 418?
Hippo seems to have been pretty much recording a fait accompli.
Recognition of the present twenty-seven books of the NT can be found in Athanasius's Paschal Letter of 367, thirty years earlier.
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
I remember finding something someone said on the ship interesting (enough to quotesfile it):
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M in the Authority for New Testament thread in Keryg:
There seem to be two uses of the word 'canon' in the whole debate: one associated more with the academic history of religions where 'canon' is the final decision of a authoritative group of notables who shake hands on the deal, pass a list to the publisher and say, "There you go my man, now be a good chap and slap a couple of dust covers on that", while perhaps 'canon' understood more within the faith community is similar to the situation where one notable waddles round the library of a another notable he is visiting at several removes and notes, "I say old chap, I see you have the same set of books that I have. Great minds think alike, what?"
Canon as a process, rather than an output. Or something like that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
1) The argument I read is that the apocrypha books, by in large, were written in Greek, whereas the Old Testament books, were originally written in Hebrew.
Several centuries ago the only texts we had of the apocryphal books were in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have fragments of some apocryphal books, including Tobit, in Hebrew.
One reason the Reformers wanted to get rid of the Apocrypha is that there is a passage in Maccabees which appears to support the doctrine of Purgatory. It tells of Jewish soldiers killed in battle who were discovered to have non-Jewish talismans with them. The Jewish leaders had the surviving Jews make atonement for the sins of the dead. (I have read the passage in the past, but I can't locate it right now.
Moo
I believe you may have reversed the cause and effect there
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The Synods of Hippo and Cartage were all regional synods, as I understand them, not ecumenical councils. While a number of ecumenical councils listed approved books of Bible; but there were called to consider other issues, not the canon. To my knowledge, there has never been any attempt to officially close the New Testament Canon.
[ 26. May 2017, 05:36: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Why does it need an ecumenical synod to officially close the canon?
The NT canon is largely agreed throughout all Christian traditions - The Syrian Orthodox had 22 books (excluding 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation) with the western Syrians only accepting the remain books in the 19th century; the Coptic churches include two letters of Clement. This canon has been reached by consensus, why does it need some bunch of bishops to sign a document to formalise that?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't see how it can be consensus when you've named at least 2 churches (or strands of church) which either rejects a handful of books or accepts others.
Moreover it appears largely accidental that protestant churches even retain the NT as we have it, given that some of the early reformers weren't keen on particular books.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I vote we reopen the NT. The Octateuch of Clement sounds quite interesting - I wonder what I'm missing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't see how it can be consensus when you've named at least 2 churches (or strands of church) which either rejects a handful of books or accepts others.
Because a consensus is a generally accepted opinion - it doesn't require unanimity.
quote:
Moreover it appears largely accidental that protestant churches even retain the NT as we have it, given that some of the early reformers weren't keen on particular books.
There are of course famous examples of individuals not being keen on some books. But, I'm not aware of any agreement between any of the reformers agreeing on what books they didn't like, nor any significant movement of people seeking to exclude some books. Put simply, nothing approaching a consensus among the reformers to change the accepted canon.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Because a consensus is a generally accepted opinion - it doesn't require unanimity.
No it doesn't. But true consensus is when you take account of difference and you acknowledge it, not just shut it out because it is different.
Consensus isn't a majority view.
quote:
There are of course famous examples of individuals not being keen on some books. But, I'm not aware of any agreement between any of the reformers agreeing on what books they didn't like, nor any significant movement of people seeking to exclude some books. Put simply, nothing approaching a consensus among the reformers to change the accepted canon.
I don't really accept that this is the way that the reformation worked. A small number of individuals had a considerable impact in the early days and then all further positions were derived from their lead. So if the early reformers had determined what was or wasn't in the NT, this is likely what would have been going forward, it wasn't ever about consensus.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Because a consensus is a generally accepted opinion - it doesn't require unanimity.
No it doesn't. But true consensus is when you take account of difference and you acknowledge it, not just shut it out because it is different.
Consensus isn't a majority view.
Maybe you need to go and read a dictionary. Because "majority view" would form part of the definition of consensus.
You should also read what I've written. Where have I even suggested that we shut out the differences? I explicitely acknowledged the differences in the Coptic and Syrian NT canons, and certainly never suggested that they're somehow excluded from the rest of Christianity because of those differences. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever suggested that those groups aren't Christian because of their canon - though there are some nutters who would exclude them on other grounds, and probably some Bible-worshipping Fundamentalists who would on their variations in the canon if they knew of them.
quote:
quote:
There are of course famous examples of individuals not being keen on some books. But, I'm not aware of any agreement between any of the reformers agreeing on what books they didn't like, nor any significant movement of people seeking to exclude some books. Put simply, nothing approaching a consensus among the reformers to change the accepted canon.
I don't really accept that this is the way that the reformation worked. A small number of individuals had a considerable impact in the early days and then all further positions were derived from their lead. So if the early reformers had determined what was or wasn't in the NT, this is likely what would have been going forward, it wasn't ever about consensus.
For the reformers to take things forward they needed support among a much wider community. That is, they needed to build a consensus that their theology was better than the old (and, in many cases better than that of other reformers). For the most part the reformers were offering an alternative to structures and doctrines that they could show were relatively recent developments in the Church. They'd have had a much harder time changing the NT canon that had been established for a millenium some of them didn't even try that hard to exclude the deutero-canonical books.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I suspect it was done before 1648. Yep just checked in the Geneva Bible* (a predecessor of King James) and the Apocrypha has already disappeared. The date of the facsimile I have is 1560.
Anyone who does not believe that translation is political needs to compare KJV with Geneva.
I checked Calvin's Institutes, not because he is an authority, but because he is trying to summarise Protestant thought at the time and make it intelligible to many. His argument is simply that the Councils of the Church are not definitive. They have taught things against scripture e.g. the refusal of the cup to the laity (yes that is Calvin's argument). Therefore something deeper is required for Scripture and that is general acceptance of the text as being part of scripture. What this suggests is that on the eve of the Reformation the Apocrypha was still dubious in its place in scripture.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suspect what the OP had in mind was the removal of the Apocrypha from the KJV, not the existence of other translations such as the Geneva Bible that had already dispensed with it.
But I take your point.
As for the position of the Apocrypha on the eve of the Reformation ... well, I'd be interested to hear what RC and Orthodox Shipmates have to say about that ...
I might be wrong, but I get the impression from the RCs and Orthodox I know that whilst all scripture is scripture and everything they regard as canonical is canonical, it doesn't necessarily carry equal weight.
I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but my impression is that RCs in particular would put more weight on the canonical NT than on the deutero-canonical books - whilst regarding both as authoritative.
I made a reference earlier to there being de-facto canons within the canon across the various Christian traditions, so it wouldn't surprise me to find that there are degrees of weight and emphasis applied to each of the 'components' as it were.
On the Calvin thing - well yes, of course the Reformation didn't happen in a vacuum and Calvin would have been synthesising and applying existing concerns that pre-dated the Reformation. I'm not drawing a direct line from Wycliffe and the Hutterites to Calvin but there had certainly been unrest with certain late-medieval RC emphases for some considerable time.
Erasmus and the Humanists represent one strand of that, even though he didn't go down the same route as Luther or Calvin.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
1) The argument I read is that the apocrypha books, by in large, were written in Greek, whereas the Old Testament books, were originally written in Hebrew.
Several centuries ago the only texts we had of the apocryphal books were in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have fragments of some apocryphal books, including Tobit, in Hebrew.
One reason the Reformers wanted to get rid of the Apocrypha is that there is a passage in Maccabees which appears to support the doctrine of Purgatory. It tells of Jewish soldiers killed in battle who were discovered to have non-Jewish talismans with them. The Jewish leaders had the surviving Jews make atonement for the sins of the dead. (I have read the passage in the past, but I can't locate it right now.
Moo
I believe you may have reversed the cause and effect there
Moo
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Gamaliel
I was going to bring in Catholicism, but for a different reason. The essence of Catholic doctrine is that the Catholic Church has been given authority. A part of that is guardianship of both the content of scripture and its correct interpretation. The result through time is of course Holy Tradition, which is authoritative over faith and morals. Holy Tradition makes extensive use of scripture, also of the insights of the Church Fathers, also of authoritative Papal pronouncements.
It is a different view of the authority and inspiration of scripture to that held, in varying ways, by Protestant denominations. Oversimplifying, scripture is not the guardian of the church, the church is the guardian of scripture.
What it does illuminate, nicely, is that the boundaries and content of scripture do not define anything about faith and morals unless supported by authoritative interpretation. So who has the authority to interpret?
The whole argument, that scripture is perspicuous, transparent as to meaning, may have been a helpful tactic used by some Protestants to challenge existing clerical authorities, but it really doesn't stand up to serious examination.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe you need to go and read a dictionary. Because "majority view" would form part of the definition of consensus.
I'd be very surprised if you can find a dictionary that says that.
Wikipedia says:
quote:
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of using this process.
That's quite a different thing to the majority view. Consensus is quite a different thing to what the majority believe.
I'm not bothered if you agree this is correct or not, it remains a fact.
quote:
You should also read what I've written. Where have I even suggested that we shut out the differences? I explicitely acknowledged the differences in the Coptic and Syrian NT canons, and certainly never suggested that they're somehow excluded from the rest of Christianity because of those differences. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever suggested that those groups aren't Christian because of their canon - though there are some nutters who would exclude them on other grounds, and probably some Bible-worshipping Fundamentalists who would on their variations in the canon if they knew of them.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you were seeking to cut them out of the definition of "Christian", I thought we were talking about the consensus of what is to be in the New Testament.
In reality, I don't think there really is a consensus on a strict understanding of the term. The faith has splintered, with various groups having their own canons. The one you and I are most familiar is the one we've inherited as part of the Protestant faith we've grown up in, but just because it is familiar to us does not make it the consensus view.
Even amongst Evangelicals, I don't think there is a strict consensus, given that we all look to the same group which made decisions as to what should be in the canon as part of the process of moving away from the RCC.
It only looks like a consensus because no Evangelical has really stopped and said "oh, hang on, maybe those ideas that were swirling around Calvin and Luther and which influenced their decisions as to what should be in the canon were wrong, and maybe we should be going a step back (two steps or longer) from them to have a broader understanding of what should or shouldn't be in the NT".
quote:
For the reformers to take things forward they needed support among a much wider community. That is, they needed to build a consensus that their theology was better than the old (and, in many cases better than that of other reformers). For the most part the reformers were offering an alternative to structures and doctrines that they could show were relatively recent developments in the Church. They'd have had a much harder time changing the NT canon that had been established for a millenium some of them didn't even try that hard to exclude the deutero-canonical books.
Again, I don't agree with the way you are using the term "consensus" here. The reformation was a spiritual-political-lotsofotherstuff historical movement where lots of things were thrown together and which set the tone for Western Protestantism. I'm not sure it is fair to say that all the groups who later emerged from the reformation were "consenting" to the canon, as much that there were such strong reasons to continue in the groove that had been set for them that they didn't even consider that there might be anything else to look at.
A consensus made in ignorance isn't a consensus.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
1) The argument I read is that the apocrypha books, by in large, were written in Greek, whereas the Old Testament books, were originally written in Hebrew.
Several centuries ago the only texts we had of the apocryphal books were in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have fragments of some apocryphal books, including Tobit, in Hebrew.
One reason the Reformers wanted to get rid of the Apocrypha is that there is a passage in Maccabees which appears to support the doctrine of Purgatory. It tells of Jewish soldiers killed in battle who were discovered to have non-Jewish talismans with them. The Jewish leaders had the surviving Jews make atonement for the sins of the dead. (I have read the passage in the past, but I can't locate it right now.
Moo
I believe you may have reversed the cause and effect there
Moo
Certainly the traditional Protestant narrative is that the Reformers axed the Apocrypha first for some of the more academic reasons already detailed. Setting aside the doctrine of purgatory was a byproduct of that prior decision then, since the doctrine isn't found in the remaining books. It was an effect rather than a cause
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe you need to go and read a dictionary. Because "majority view" would form part of the definition of consensus.
I'd be very surprised if you can find a dictionary that says that.
Dictionary.com, just as the first online dictionary I went to.
Which is, of course, different from consensus decision making, which is what your wiki page was about.
quote:
A consensus made in ignorance isn't a consensus.
Of course it is. If it's the majority view then it's the majority view - how people come to hold that view is irrelevant.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Cambridge dictionary: a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people
Merriam-Webster:
1
a : general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
2
: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Oxford: usually in singular A general agreement.
with clause ‘there is a growing consensus that the current regime has failed’
as modifier ‘a consensus view’
Wiktionary: A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members.
General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
Average projected value, as in the finance term consensus forecast.
Dictionary.com:
1.
majority of opinion:
The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.
MacMillan: agreement among all the people involved
Yourdictionary.com:
The definition of consensus is an agreement made by a group.
An example of consensus is when Republicans and Democrats agree on language for a bill.
Consensus means generally accepted opinion.
An example of consensus is most people believing that it is wrong to kill another person.
--
At best the idea that consensus is to do with the "majority view" is considered a minority usage. Most dictionaries don't even mention the majority view.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Think 12 Angry Men. The majority view was that the guy was guilty. But the consensus was that he was innocent.
The consensus was gained because the judge refused to accept a verdict until everyone agreed.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
By the way for those interested Calvin quite often forwent the privilege of arguing that something was not in the Bible and thus irrelevant in favour of engaging with it. Once, at least, to criticise the translation on which the argument was based. Indeed I only found him doing the get out of jail free option once.
This is fairly easy to do, Calvin references Apocrypha only a handful of times in his Institutes.
Jengie
[ 26. May 2017, 18:22: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
By the way for those interested Calvin quite often forwent the privilege of arguing that something was not in the Bible and thus irrelevant in favour of engaging with it. Once, at least, to criticise the translation on which the argument was based. Indeed I only found him doing the get out of jail free option once.
Whilst I love the word forwent, I don't understand it in this context having never heard of it before. And hence can't decipher your post.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
'Forwent' is the past tense of 'forgone'.
You're probably familiar with 'foregone', as in a 'foregone conclusion' (something that is so likely to happen that it's accepted as inevitable).
Not quite sure what's happened to the 'e', but the above info comes from Wikipedia, so it must be True.
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
'Forwent' is the past tense of 'forgone'.
You're probably familiar with 'foregone', as in a 'foregone conclusion' (something that is so likely to happen that it's accepted as inevitable).
Not quite sure what's happened to the 'e', but the above info comes from Wikipedia, so it must be True.
Close, except that "foregone" is an adjective, not a verb, so it doesn't have a past tense. "Forwent" is the past tense of "forgo," meaning to refrain from, do without or renounce.
So, Jengie jon's sentence—"Calvin quite often forwent the privilege of arguing that something was not in the Bible and thus irrelevant in favour of engaging with it"—means Calvin often refrained from taking the easy way out and arguing simply that something was not in the Bible and thus irrelevant, choosing instead to engage with it.
[ 26. May 2017, 18:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks, Nick - quite right. I should have looked more closely before posting (and should also, by now, know my verbs from my adjectives).
That's what you get for trying to be Helpful in Haste...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Better helpful in haste than not helpful at all.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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 ...
The Second Helvetic Confession said this about the Apocrypha around 80 years before Westminster (1566):
quote:
And yet we do not conceal the fact that certain books of the Old Testament were by the ancient authors called apocryphal, and by the others ecclesiastical; in as much as some would have them read in the churches, but not advanced as an authority from which the faith is to be established. As Augustine also, in his De Civitate Dei, book 18, ch. 38, remarks that "In the books of the Kings, the names and books of certain prophets are cited"; but he adds that "They are not in the canon"; and that "those books which we have suffice unto godliness."
And of course five years after the Second Helvetic Confession, Article VI of the XXXIX Articles said of the apocryphal books that "the Church doth read [them] for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
So the Westminster Assembly wasn't saying anything new for Reformed Protestants or English Protestants, and if whoever the OP has been talking to or reading is focusing on Westminster as "when the books were removed," they're way off.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Are we sure that the books Augustine is talking about are the same books we are talking about? If he said they weren't in the canon, either he's talking about other books, or he was wrong. Although it occurs to me that he was buds with Jerome, and may have taken on board the latter's hatred of the Deuts, and mistakenly thought the Church concurred. But the tl/dr is that he was just wrong.
[ 27. May 2017, 01:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
TBH, I wondered the same thing, mousethief, and I don't know the answer.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I can see that Nick Tamen.
You'll know better than I do, but I have detected some neo-Calvinist stripped down and reductionist forms of evangelical emphases wafting from the US which seem to focus on Westminster as if it is somehow more definitive or paradigmatic of Reformed theology than any of the other Confessions - even to the extent that you wonder whether they are actually aware of them ...
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
...
As Augustine also, in his De Civitate Dei, book 18, ch. 38, remarks that "In the books of the Kings, the names and books of certain prophets are cited"; but he adds that "They are not in the canon"; and that "those books which we have suffice unto godliness."
In the canonical four books called (Samuel&) Kings there are citations of "the annals of the Kings of Judea", etc... which definitely are not in the canon (or indeed available).
Given this I suspect it's unlikely Augustine is directly referring to the apocrypha.
Even this satisfies the precedent of there being stuff available that isn't vital. Though (assuming augustine not actually about apocrypha) I think the Helvetic convention is over-reading Jerome into Augustine.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
In relation to the year 1684, I did find this nutter web site: Why were 14 books Removed from the Bible in 1684?
The comments on that page seem to come from pixie land: e.g. comments that "the Vatican" removed the books (from the KJV????) because they are all Illuminati.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Pedant alert
'Foregone' is a participle.
Go - present tense.
Going - present participle, as in 'I am going'.
Went - past tense, 'Yesterday I went'.
Gone - past participle, 'I have gone home'.
Therefore:-
Forgo - present tense, meaning 'give up', 'do without'.
Forgoing - present participle.
Forwent - past tense, but rarely used, as it refers to a single event.
Forgone - past participle, much commoner since 'I have forgone' continues into the present.
And:-
Forego - present tense, meaning 'go before', 'precede', almost obsolete.
Foregoing - present participle, commoner, but a bit legalese .
Forewent - past tense, meaning 'went before', as good as obsolete.
Foregone - past participle, almost obsolete as a verb but widely used in phrase 'foregone conclusion'.
What causes the confusion is that the two prefixes 'for' and 'fore' sound the same, have different meanings and are spelt differently. Apart from that, both sets of formations are entirely regular and conjugate the same way as almost every other situation where a verb is formed by attaching a prefix to an irregular verb.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Pedant alert
'Foregone' is a participle.
Yes. And participles used adjectivally are one of the most common forms of adjectives in English.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
...
As Augustine also, in his De Civitate Dei, book 18, ch. 38, remarks that "In the books of the Kings, the names and books of certain prophets are cited"; but he adds that "They are not in the canon"; and that "those books which we have suffice unto godliness."
In the canonical four books called (Samuel&) Kings there are citations of "the annals of the Kings of Judea", etc... which definitely are not in the canon (or indeed available).
Given this I suspect it's unlikely Augustine is directly referring to the apocrypha.
Even this satisfies the precedent of there being stuff available that isn't vital. Though (assuming augustine not actually about apocrypha) I think the Helvetic convention is over-reading Jerome into Augustine.
Which "apocrypha" are you referring to? The Deuterocanonicals which are called by the Protestants "The Apocrypha"? Or truly apocryphal stuff that were never in the LXX at all?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Mousethief: can you give an example of something you think is determined from the Deuterocanonical books that is useful and interesting and different to what we'd otherwise have?
I've never read them and know almost nothing about them.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which "apocrypha" are you referring to? The Deuterocanonicals which are called by the Protestants "The Apocrypha"? Or truly apocryphal stuff that were never in the LXX at all?
Short version, when I used 'apocrypha' I was referring to the deutocanonical books. But think it likely that Augustine was referring to stuff never in the LXX.
I suspect there's a good case that Augustine was referring to specific stuff we never made it to the LXX. There being a reasonable candidate of mentioned texts that matches the text a bit better (the obvious time for it to be lost would be the exile). That assumption requires the books to be associated with Prophets, which is a bit of a stretch.
If he is doing that he is not referring to the DeutCans. That option would fix the Prophet reference but require some people that cite Maccabees to be called Kings. In addition (even if he were a proto-prot) they would come into 'books that we have' anyway even if not 'books in the canon'. All in all, this option seems less likely.
The Helvetic Convention text, definitely appears, however, to take Augustine's words as applying to the DeuteroCanonical books.
They additionally seem to take Augustine's words as having been written about the DeuteroCanonical books.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
The Helvetic Convention text, definitely appears, however, to take Augustine's words as applying to the DeuteroCanonical books.
They additionally seem to take Augustine's words as having been written about the DeuteroCanonical books.
Which brings us back around to, either they're wrong, or he was.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I can see that Nick Tamen.
You'll know better than I do, but I have detected some neo-Calvinist stripped down and reductionist forms of evangelical emphases wafting from the US which seem to focus on Westminster as if it is somehow more definitive or paradigmatic of Reformed theology than any of the other Confessions - even to the extent that you wonder whether they are actually aware of them ...
I assume you mean New Calvinist, Gamaliel—or as some have suggested might be more accurate, Neo-Puritan. (The Neo-Calvinists were 100+ years ago.).
I don't know that much. The New Calvinists seem to operate mostly outside the Reformed tradition, as best I can tell. They are much more associated with Baptist and independent community churches than with Presbyterian or Reformed churches. Perhaps they focus on Westminster, but what I tend to see is heavy on Dort and TULIP.
But to the degree it has any bearing, it may be helpful to remember that until 50 years ago, the Westminster standards were the confessional standards for American Presbyterians. That is still the case for all American Presbyterian bodies except for the PC(USA) and the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (made up of some congregations that split from the PC(USA) in the last few years over dead horse issues.). So if the New Calvinists are at all influenced by some of the very conservative Presbyterian denominations over here, then the Westminster standards might be part of that influence.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
The Helvetic Convention text, definitely appears, however, to take Augustine's words as applying to the DeuteroCanonical books.
They additionally seem to take Augustine's words as having been written about the DeuteroCanonical books.
Which brings us back around to, either they're wrong, or he was.
I could be completely wrong on this, but along with seeing the full Augustine quote in context, I'd be interested in the Latin original (written by Heinrich Bullinger, essentially as his last testament) or the original German translation of the Second Helvetic Confession. Part of me wonders if something has been lost in translation.
Then again, maybe not.
[ 28. May 2017, 01:55: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Pedant alert
'Foregone' is a participle.
Yes. And participles used adjectivally are one of the most common forms of adjectives in English.
Called a gerundive - at least it was when I was at school.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I mentioned previously that the Lutheran understanding of the Bible is that it is the cradle upon which the Word of God rests.
The actual quote is:
]Luther: "The Bible is the cradle that holds the Christ." Christ is the measure. Worship the Christ, not the cradle.
The Word of God (Christ) has not changed.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I think you perhaps should ready where the CofS stands on the Westminster Confession.
So much of what is taken from confessions is eisegesis rather than exegesis.
Jengie
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I have a book on all this stuff, "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce.
Unfortunately, for rather complicated reasons, my book collection is currently in utter chaos and I couldn't find it in any of the more likely piles...
Which is a shame because it goes through in quite some details the occasions where early church writers expressed views about which books were in or out.
One thing I do remember is that the Eastern and Western churches frequently did not agree on this, long before there was a formal schism. I think most often it was the Eastern church that accepted a slightly wider range of writings, though there might also have been cases the other way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And having said that, I didn't give up and just found the book!
Right, let's take a look at Augustine of Hippo since that's come up...
Well he's one of the ones that was very specific about what he said for the Old Testament, listing 44 books (numbering is mine to keep up, but he does at the end say 44 and it matches what I can get out of the text:
1-5 Pentateuch
6 Joshua
7 Ruth
8-12 FOUR books of Kings, which I'm fairly sure equals 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings.
13-14 Two books of Chronicles
15-18 Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith
19-20 Two books of Maccabees
21-22 Two books of Esdras, which is Ezra & Nehemiah
23 Psalms
24-26 Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes
27-28 Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus
29-40 The 12 minor prophets
41-44 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel
[ 30. May 2017, 09:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
41-44 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel
Does he specify whether Daniel includes Susannah and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
41-44 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel
Does he specify whether Daniel includes Susannah and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon?
Erm...
According to Bruce's commentary, additions to Daniel and Esther are treated as parts of those books, and Jeremiah includes Lamentations/Baruch/the Letter of Jeremiah. I assume this is based on evidence in writing beyond the bit that is explicitly quoted.
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right, let's take a look at Augustine of Hippo since that's come up...
Well he's one of the ones that was very specific about what he said for the Old Testament, listing 44 books (numbering is mine to keep up, but he does at the end say 44 and it matches what I can get out of the text:
1-5 Pentateuch
6 Joshua
7 Ruth
Does Augustine's canon exclude the Book of Judges?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Nope, because if you look carefully, I got so excited by the 4 books of Kings that I assigned them 5 numbers...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
This is somewhat tangential.
My Bible study group is reading the Apocrypha, and we've gotten to the Prayer of Manasseh. My favorite Bible translation is the New Jerusalem, which is an RC translation. This means that some books of the Apocrypha are incorporated into such canonical books as Daniel.
Unfortunately, I can't find the Prayer of Manasseh. Does anyone know where it is in the RC scriptures?
Moo
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
According to wikipedia, the Vulgate has it at the end of 2 Chronicles.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The New Jerusalem Bible doesn't have The Prayer of Manasseh at the end of Chronicles, I checked. From the same Wikipedia article I got the impression that it was not part of the RC canon, so not in the NJB.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm fairly sure you're right in thinking Four Books of Kings correspond to 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings. I haven't checked, but I seem to remember the headnotes to the books in old Bibles describing 1&2 Samuel as 'also known as 1&2 Kings' and then 1&2 Kings having 'also known as 3&4 Kings'.
It rather looks as though in the 100+ years between the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession, the Apocryphal Books seem to have gone steadily down the theological social scale, or is it that the proddier you get, the further below the salt they go, with the CofE putting them more or less where the salt is, and the Presbyterians very definitely putting them further down the table?
I would always, if I could, buy a Bible which includes them. Whatever you think of their status, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom and 1 Maccabees alone are well worth the difference in price, and the whole is much, much better than a lot of the Christian literature we get exhorted to read. I also really enjoy Tobit.
It annoys me a lot that there are at least two widely used translations that have never bothered to translate them at all.
Incidentally, I have quite a strong feeling the Geneva Bible did originally include them, but am not sure where that impression comes from. If so, it will be those successors to that tradition who don't like those books who have dropped them from modern reproductions.
The JB always has them. The AV, NRSV, and REB are all available with them if you choose to buy that edition, the NRSV including additional books that are not in the western canon+. Back in the day, the RSV and NEB were also available with them. It is possible in the UK to get an ESV with them, but I think that's not available in North America. I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version. There's a nice little one of Tobias grabbing the fish, with his dog watching. There isn't one of Judith actually chopping off Holofernes's head. She's shown creeping up on his bed, with a prayer for courage for what she's about to have to do.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, I have quite a strong feeling the Geneva Bible did originally include them, but am not sure where that impression comes from.
It did. It also had cross-references from the NT to the Apocryphal books.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I have a recollection reading John Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, and I think in there he cites a verse from Ecclesiasticus that had a profound effect and impact on his condition. So I don't think it is necessarily A Protestant thing.
Didn't Steve Tonkins of this parish once publish an article in which he described how the Bible Society thought it would be cheaper just not to have them in the early 19th century, And this led to a presumption about their status in Protestant circles?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Back in the day, the RSV and NEB were also available with them. It is possible in the UK to get an ESV with them, but I think that's not available in North America.
I think the difference here is that in the case of the REB/NSRV the translation of the Apocrypha was planned ahead of time. Whereas the ESV PTB being more fundamentalist than thou belatedly realised that a Apocrypha would be useful in having themselves taken more seriously. AFAICT it's now available in North America also via an imprint of Collins.
quote:
I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version. There's a nice little one of Tobias grabbing the fish, with his dog watching. There isn't one of Judith actually chopping off Holofernes's head. She's shown creeping up on his bed, with a prayer for courage for what she's about to have to do.
By some strange coincidence, I ended up with this Bible as a child - and spent a few happy hours reading Tobit, Judith, Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, all of which were considerably more racy than the bible stories in Sunday School. It does now occur to me to wonder who this edition was aimed at though.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The peculiar ones, to my mind, are what the AV calls 1 and 2 Esdras, which were not considered canonical in the West before the Reformation AFAIK, but which were nevertheless apparently considered important enough by the translators to merit them a place alongside Maccabees and the others.
(To add to the confusion, I understand that 1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate refer to Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, and if you are referring to the AV 1 Esdras in Latin, you have to call it 3 Esdras. Whereas in the Septuagint, the AV 1 Esdras is called Esdras Alpha, and Ezra and Nehemiah are a single book called Esdras Beta.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The RSV was issued in a "Catholic Version" in which the deuts are included in their wonted places within the books they were found in in the LXX, rather than in a lump after the Hebrew OT, excised from context.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version.
The recent ecumenical prison chaplaincy Bible I mentioned earlier is the French Parole de Vie version, which is an excellent, very recent, "basic French" yet accurate translation (it's all in the present tense, which really makes the text jump out at you) - complete with those illustrations by Swiss artist Annie Vallotton.
So if anyone else wants access to the Deuterocanonical Vallotton drawings, simply get imprisoned in France ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Eutychus, thanks for that.
Meanwhile, a thought has occurred to me overnight. Might there be a trail that leads from the Westminster Confession approach to the deuterocanonical books,
'these are the REAL scriptures, and those are, well, just books',
to some of the rather rigid and doctrinaire takes on the nature of scriptural authority, the way it works and a rather narrow approach to the way we should engage with scripture that one can encounter in some fundamentalist groups?
Might a historical and ongoing tacit acceptance that some bits of scripture might be more authoritative than others make it easier also for people to accept that different bits of scripture work in different ways?
As an example, I once encountered what sounds like a daft question - except with that background it isn't.
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
That isn't, by the way, the message that the word can light both the ground just in front of us, and further along the path. That's a valid snippet for a sermon that I suspect was a midrash well before even the time of Jesus.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The New Jerusalem Bible doesn't have The Prayer of Manasseh at the end of Chronicles, I checked. From the same Wikipedia article I got the impression that it was not part of the RC canon, so not in the NJB.
Right I checked, you might like to read this answer.
We seem to have a hierarchy among Apocryphal texts and that hierarchy depends on known historical validity.
Jengie
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
The Psalms are Hebrew poetry, and one characteristic of Hebrew poetry is paraphrase. e.g.: Psalm 102:1 quote:
Hear my prayer, Lord; let my cry come unto thee.
C. S. Lewis pointed out that this characteristic makes it much easier to translate the psalms into other languages. If rhyme had been an important part of Hebrew poetry, they would not translate so easily.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As an example, I once encountered what sounds like a daft question - except with that background it isn't.
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
No, it's a daft question, for the reason Moo gives. It betrays a shocking lack of knowledge of Hebrew poetry for a preacher preaching on Hebrew poetry.
___
(ETA one word)
[ 31. May 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
But the people who consciously follow the WCF are largely happy with the idea of genre. This even applies to the conservatives who came up with things like the Chicago Statement.
It's how the non-confessionals evangelicals who adopt an approach with similar characteristics who are more likely to adopt that kind of approach.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
I'd say that makes it a reductio ad absurdum for that understanding.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo
quote:
...paraphrase...
I think you meant 'Parallelism'??
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0