Board index ‹ Bible

[Fritzy]

The Bible is still the final authority. Your thoughts and opinions do not matter.

[Ethan Hunt]

Agreed, but there are 73 books in the Bible...

[Fritzy]

What is missing from the list?

[Ethan Hunt]

Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom.

These were always part of the Biblical canon, as evidenced by all the printed bibles pre-16th century. The 73 books were listed by the Christian bishops in council circa 400 AD, based on their constant usage back to the Apostles themselves ('Apostolic Tradition'). They were considered Biblical even before then, though. It wasn't until a guy in the 16th century decided those seven books didn't belong, based on his own judgement, in contrameasure to the Apostolic Tradition, thus creating the 'Protestant Tradition'.

[jimwalton]

Daniel, this claim of yours is not true. The first assemblage of books (The Muratorian Fragment, AD 180) included 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, 1 Jn. Jude, Revelation, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Wisdom of Solomon. It did NOT include Baruch, Judith, 1 & 2 Macc., Sirach, or Tobit.

You say, "based on their constant usage back to the Apostles themselves ('Apostolic Tradition').", but this is not true, either. From 100-140, the Apostolic Fathers quote from the 4 Gospels and the Pauline epistles, but no apocryphal works. From 140-220, their quotations now include also Acts, 1 Jn,. Jude, and Revelation, but not anything from the books you mentioned.

Origin (250) included them; Eusebius (300) did NOT. They are in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but were NOT included by Athanasius (367) or Jerome in the Vulgate (382).

They were included at the councils or Rome (382) and Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), and Consulenti Tibi (405), but NOT in the Codex Alexandrinus.

It's inaccurate to say "these were always part of the Biblical canon." They weren't. Nor are they "evidenced by all the printed bibles pre-16th century." They were included by some, but distinctly rejected by Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory the Great, John of Damascus, John Wycliffe, Hugh of St. Victor, and Nicholas of Lyra.

While the 27 books of the NT have been recognized by all since Athanasius (367), the Apocryphal books have ALWAYS been disagreed about and debated, some including them and some excluding.

The apocryphal books, on the other hand, were never included as Scripture by any Jewish source BC or AD. The Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers never quoted them as Scripture. In some Church circles they were rejected; in others accepted. They have been a subject of contention through the Church until 1563 when they were officially recognized by the Council of Trent. The Protestant Church (1517 on) has never recognized them. They were included in the King James Bible as a placating nod to the pope, but were removed in the late 19th century.

[Ethan Hunt]

The canon was indeed in flux in the first few centuries. The Muraturian fragment was one such list, and it included a book or two that both Protestants and Catholics reject from the canon. Various Christian bishops in those early centuries did reference some of them. (ie, Barnabas, Clement to the Corinthians, Iraenaeus, Polycarp, and others. References upon request). Then, circa 400, the Christian bishops in council spoke on the matter and gave us the 73-book canon. That is the determining factor, not some individuals' preference, especially not an individual in the 16th century.

Oh, one other point, the Vulgate of the 4th century included them. Even though Jerome preferred not to, he aquiesced to the Church leadership, because he recognized them as those with such authority to judge rightly on such a matter.

[jimwalton]

My point, to which you have agreed, is that they were NOT always part of the canon, as you claimed (the canon was in flux). The Apostolic Fathers quoted from the Gospels and Paul, not the Apocrypha. The Jewish community NEVER recognized them as Scripture. The Muratorian Fragment, our earliest list, included only 2. Some early church fathers referenced them, but not as Scripture. As I pointed out, some councils included them and some did not. You said every printed Bible before 1600 included them, and that's not true, either. Jerome's original Vulgate did not, neither did Wycliffe's Bible. Jerome did NOT include them; the Council of Rome added them over Jerome's objections. He didn't acquiesce to a higher authority; they bulldozed over him against his objections. These books have ALWAYS been in dispute. The 27 have NEVER been in dispute since Athanasius.