homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Books Removed from the Bible 1684 (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Books Removed from the Bible 1684
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
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
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ann

Curious
# 94

 - Posted      Profile for Ann   Email Ann   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.



--------------------
Ann

Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"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      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I vote we reopen the NT. The Octateuch of Clement sounds quite interesting - I wonder what I'm missing.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

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

--------------------
"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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'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

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Better helpful in haste than not helpful at all.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TBH, I wondered the same thing, mousethief, and I don't know the answer.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ...

--------------------
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
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools