| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19th, 2007 01:31 am |
|
Fro mwhat I have learned it seems easy to establish tha tthe deuterocanonicals were clearly in the bible as early as the other books and clearly taken away by Luther.
But why was the term deuterocanonicals used? Does it not mean second canon? So what is secondary about this canon if it was already as much scripture as the other OT books? Did we just use the term to acknowledge that there was some dispute between us and the Jews? As muchas history seems to show we have the original bible and have stuck to it, it seems using a term like 'second canon' sort of makes us look guilty like we are acknowledging it as less authoritative. Why use an extra term if the books are just as valid as the others?
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 278 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19th, 2007 01:57 am |
|
The purpose of the early councils in question was in determining which of the early christian writings could be accepted as scripture and used in the worship of the church apart from the books of the new testament, some communities accepted "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "1st Clement" as being scriptural these early council determined once an for all what the LIST (canon) of early christian writings would be accepted as scripture. There was an assumption that the canon of the Old testament was fixed as that which existed at the time in the septuagint (Greek Old testament) and as such was not as formally promulgated.
Fast forward to the so-called reformation (more of a revolution if you ask me) and challenges are made to the veracity of the Canon of the Old testament. The church in her practice of responding to these kinds of problems as they occur made a definative statement as to what the List of old testament writings were accepted as scripture.
As such the canonicity of the books called the deuterocanon was formally promulgated later than the books of the new testament, and there was no serious dispute as to those books that exist in both the Greek and Hebrew Canons, so thats effectivley where the name comes from
The church always accepted these books, it just wasn't until Luther et. al. that she felt the need to say so explicitly
Regards Dave
____________________
NB: 'DrDave' is a nickname from college not and indication of academic achievement.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 12:05 am |
|
DrDave wrote:There was an assumption that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed as that which existed at the time in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and as such was not as formally promulgated.
Since the listings I have read from the ancient councils enumerate all the books of the bible, both Old and New Testaments, I have always assumed that it was the purpose of these councils to move toward a definition of the entire canon, not just the New Testament.
I can agree with you, Dave, that the Septuagint was considered the “standard” by most Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries. And I can understand how a presumed standard would reduce the need for defining the canon further. However, the actual laying out of the lists seems not to favor this viewpoint. The councils appear to give equal attention to the two testaments. Is there something I’m missing?
David
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 12:24 am |
|
Now with regard to your question, Brian, I wanted to mention that in my opinion the idea of “second canon” does not imply that the books contained in it are inferior. The historical reality is that the deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the Palestinian Jews, who admitted only those books written in Hebrew. The Greek-speaking diaspora was much larger; however, they eventually yielded to the Palestinians, probably because of the Christian co-opting of the Septuagint and the books it contained. In this sense it appears that the Christians and Greek Jews both used the term deuterocanonical “to acknowledge that there was some dispute” with the Jews of Palestine. This would acknowledge the difference of language and culture of origin while maintaining the canonicity of the later works. But it ultimately became a “Christian versus Jew” thing instead of a “Jew versus Jew” thing. And this is why Luther was wrong: after more than a millennium of Christian tradition accepting the Greek canon, he sided with the Jews as against the Christians when it came to the canon of scripture.
David
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 278 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 12:39 am |
|
David, upon further checking of original sources I defer to your explaination, it would appear that some of the apologetic sources from which I drew my understanding, while not incorrect, were less than complete leading to my defective understanding.
With Thanks Dave
____________________
NB: 'DrDave' is a nickname from college not and indication of academic achievement.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 12:50 am |
|
It has always been my understanding that the books of the Septuagint were generally accepted in Palestine during the time of Jesus and the apostles, but there was no real "Canon" defined by the Jews until approximately 70 A.D. Once that Canon was declared, the "Christian" books were considered the "second Canon" or Deuterocanonicals by the Church.
In other words, the Hebrew Scriptures were accepted intact, and the Greek writings were added as a second, equally inspired addition. The two canons together make up the Old Testament.
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 35 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25th, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
| I remain fascinated by this particular topic not so much because there is that much dispute over the deuterocanonical books being part of the Bible of the Catholic and Orthodox Church since the earliest centuries, but for why there is a difference between how many books make up the deuterocanonical part of the Old Testament in the Latin Rite and Eastern Churches. If the Church has believed and taught from the same Old Testament since the first century, why do the Orthodox and Coptic Churches embrace books (like 4 Maccabbees, Psalm 151 and, I believe, 2 Esdras) that have never, to my knowledge, been accepted by the Latin Rite Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome? This perplexes me--how could the one Apostolic and Catholic Church of the first centuries have this difference of opinion? I put it this way because I think those other churches from the East and Africa are considered by the Catholic Church to be Churches (as opposed to communions or religious bodies) that are in schism, but have taught the one Faith since the time of Christ. I thank you for your input on this small but fascinating topic. Pax tecum.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25th, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote:I remain fascinated by this particular topic not so much because there is that much dispute over the deuterocanonical books being part of the Bible of the Catholic and Orthodox Church since the earliest centuries, but for why there is a difference between how many books make up the deuterocanonical part of the Old Testament in the Latin Rite and Eastern Churches.
My understanding is that the differences are liturgical only, and the “extra books” used by the eastern Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox, are not considered “part of the bible.” So it’s a liturgical tradition with them, not a dogma. Maybe someone could enlighten us all if this is incorrect.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25th, 2007 10:22 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Maybe someone could enlighten us all if this is incorrect.
It just so happens that Deacon Joseph, who recently joined the forum, is a former Orthodox deacon. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
|
|
|
Current time is 07:50 pm | |
|
|
