Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the Canon is "closed."

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by 7-Kids, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. 7-Kids

    7-Kids
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the Canon is closed back 380 something?
     
  2. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing was added the canon was simply reaffirmed at Trent because Protestants had deleted the books from their Bibles. There are many pre-reformation bibles that are in museums none contain the canon used by the protestants.
     
  3. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Do you mean Bibles like the Latin Vulgate? Jerome eventually put the apocrypha in, but against his will. He opposed it vehemently.
    DHK
     
  4. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jerome adequately answered this in his letter to Rufinius by saying those who make these claims against him are "foolish sychophants".

    The Protestant Canon is a tradition of men not of God.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Even the AV1611 and many previous English versions retained the apochryphal books as "history", although not authoritative and on a par with the inspired canon.

    But it was there. I think the Romish insistance that they are fully and equally "inspired" (when containing obvious error and falacy) that caused most Protestant Bible makers to eventually drop the apochrypha totally from their versions.
     
  6. CalvinG

    CalvinG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please tell us more of the obvious errors and fallacy of the apocrypha.

    I used to think the Catholics added new books to their Bibles at the Council of Trent also. I do think there was healthy debate as to the inspiration and canonicity of the apocrypha prior to Trent within the Catholic denomination.

    I think this problem came about because the apocrypha somehow found its way into the commonly used versions of OT Scripture in and around Rome. The Jews never declared the apocrypha to be a valid part of OT canon. My own version of history is that these books ended up in the new Christian OT because they were in the non-Hebrew translations OT Scripture used in the early church. There weren't many folks able to read Hebrew well in the early church in and around Rome.

    After the KJV, when Protestants got together and agreed on the canon...and keep in mind how many different kinds of Protestants there are and how difficult it is to get most of them to agree on doctrine...translation was made directly from the Jewish OT Scripture, which, as decided by the Jews subsequent to Jesus' crucifixion, did not include the Apocryphal books.

    It's interesting history.
     
  7. 7-Kids

    7-Kids
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    When thr RCC first set the canon back in 380 something did they not list the book of the Bible?
    I thought it was set.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brief Scripture History

    1st Century

    1st century Jews were not united as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. Many different canons were in use by the Jews in the 1st century, including the OT canon used by Christians, which included a certain seven books with many Messianic prophecies which were used to evangelize to Jews along with the Christian Gospels.

    In order to determine which books belong in scripture and to stop the spread of Christianity several rabbi’s met in Javneh in A.D. 90. They declared the deuterocanonicals (known as the apocrypha to protestants) to be unfit for scripture they also declared the Gospels as unfit to be considered scripture. In fact by the criteria they set all books of the Christian New Testament would be considered unfit to be scripture.

    Interesting side note is that the African Jews whose ancestors at the time were unaffected by Christianity did not participate in this Council, they still use an Old Testament Canon that is identical to the Catholic Church, 2,000 years later.

    4th Century

    Catholic Church Affirms the OT Cannon and determines NT Canon

    This was done by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), this canon was alss contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420),

    11 Century

    1052 – Orthodox Church schisms from the Catholic Church (they keep the seven books Protestants would eventually discard)

    15/16 century

    Protestants edit the Bible creating a brand new Christian canon by removing seven books from the OT (Check the museums for pre-reformation Bibles the aren’t the protestant version)

    Some protestants also try to remove certain NT books such as James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St. John, these changes don’t catch on but a few of these modified Bibles are still in existence.

    1570

    The Catholic Church infallibly reaffirms the Christian Canon by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570) to combat protestant modifications to the Bible.

    [ March 06, 2004, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
     
  9. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    The Hebrew canon was closed by 400 B.C. Between 400 B.C. there was silence as far as God's revelation was concerned. He did not speak to any prophet. One of the requirements that the Jews had was for a book to be included in the canon of the Old Testament, it had to have been written before 400 B.C. That in itself disqualifies the entire apocrypha.

    Josephus, the Jewish historian, gives extensive quotes how there were only 39 books of the Old Testament, or the same number that we have today.

    Jesus himself in Luke 24:44 refers to the Old Testament divisions as the Jews divided the Old Testament. There is no possible way the apocrypha could be included in those divisions:

    Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
    As the Jews divided the books of the Old Testament there is no possible way that the apocrypha could have been included in these three divisions.
    The apocrypha is never quoted by the apostles, and yet most of the other Old Testament books are.
    The Apocrypha was never, never accepted by the Jews, the apostles, neither by the early church, nor by the Protestants. You might say it has been entirely "a Catholic thing."

    Here is one of the biggest farces of all. All the books of the Apocrypha were written between 210 B.C. (Book of Sirach) and as late as 70 A.D. (Baruch). One would have us believe that the Book of Baruch should be included in the Old Testament Canon when it was written after most of the New Testament was written! :rolleyes:

    Even the Catholics have to admit that the Books were never officially accepted by the Catholics until the sixteenth century.

    They have sputious doctrine in them and are not written as Scripture, telling fanciful fairy-tale like stories as Daniel being in the lion's den a second time, and Obadiah being carried through the air by an angel grasping his hair and setting him down in the midst of the lions to give him his lunch. Convince me that that is Scripture and not just somebody's vivid imagination!!!
    DHK
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because to them the Word of God can be tampered with if it suits their needs.
     
  11. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dhk

    I put the history out there the protestant history is a fairy tale, for it to make sense the Catholic Church would have entered into a conspiracy with the Orthodox Church 600 years after they broke apart to add these books into the their Bibles as well not to mention the 2000 year conspiry with the African Jews to make their OT canon match up as well. Most protestants just can't admit the truth

    Problem is sola scriptura doesn't work that well when the 1st 350 years of christian history the canon of the Bible wasn't set and then for the next 1100 years the canon of the Bible was different than what protestants currently use. Please show me all the pre-reformation bibles in the museums, which match up with the protestant canon.

    Protestants tampered with the word of God not Catholics to deny it would be to live in a world of falsehood and fantasy.

    [ March 06, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting thread.
    I wonder what would happen if there were new parchments, scrolls, whatever found that appeared to be true and accurate and meant to be part of scripture, and couldn't be disproven as such. Would it be added to the bible, by anyone, if this happened in our times?
    Gina
     
  13. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Your history is Catholic revisionism at its best, and is full of inaccuracies as far as the canonization is concerned.
    I recommend that you read first how the Scriptures came to be from this link:

    The Canon of Scripture
     
  14. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Gina asks:
    They probably would be regarded as an interesting novelty.

    Please pardon my ignorance! But I've wondered: If revelation had ceased by the end of the apostolic age, then how is it we accept the closing of the canon at so late a date?

    I know that the books were inspired, but is the choosing of the canon considered inspired too?

    Rob
     
  15. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    Your first post on this subject said that Jerome was forced to put the Catholic Canon in the Latin Vulgate despite his objections now you claim Catholic didn't put it in until 12oo years later. How many versions of history do you subscribe to.

    Thank goodness the physical evidence (old bibles)are still in existence? Next trip to Europe please go test your revisionist theories in their museums.

    Also exactly how did the Catholic Curch get the Orthodox Church to go along with this revisionism 5-6 centuries after the schism? Do you really believe their was a conspiracy? These Church historically have not had the best relations.?
     
  16. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gina, Interesting question even if something was found who has the authority to determine what is and is not canonical there was much debate in the early church on several books, then again between protestants and catholics in the 15/16th centuries.

    Another interesting tidbit would be when determining the NT the Catholic Church did not include Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans eventhough in Colossians 4:16 Paul asks that it be read with his Epistle to the Colossians. Its been a while since i studied it but I believe at the time there were many conflicting version of this Epistle and the Catholic Church felt that none was actually valid so it could not be included in scripture.

    Colossians 4:16
    And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

    For those who don't believe in the authority of the Catholic Church why do you believe in the NT canon they decided upon, based on how you interpret the Bible wouldn't it make more sense for each individual believer to determine their own canon.

    But for your original question the Catholic Church has already infallibly determined the canon is closed and as discussed we stick to our teachings.

    God Bless

    Dennis
     
  17. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Here is your first fallacy. The Jews were united as to what the canon of the Old Testament was. In fact they knew what it was as early as 400 B.C. To deny that they didn't would be to put the very integrity of Christ in question, as he refers to the whole of the canon of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. They did not have to wait until 90 A.D. for a council to decide what the canon was. That is just a pipe dream.
    Furthermore the entire O.T. canon of Scripture was translated into Greek, in 250 B.C., originally without the Apocrypha. It is evident then that they had the canon of Scripture.
    As you say they rejected the apocrypha (they always have), and they rejected the gospels (they always have). The Jews have always accepted the Old Testament only; the same Old Testament that we use in our KJV Bibles today; the same Hebrew Old Testament that I have in my library today; the same Hebrew Old Testament that I studied from when I learned Hebrew. It contains the same books that our present day Bible does. It is the same O.T. that orthodox Jews use today. They didn't have to wait until 90 A.D. to determine what canon they would have. You infer that all Jews from 450 B.C. to 90 A.D. (including Christ and the Apostles) never had the Word of God. How ludicrous!

    Unaffected? Surely you jest? Alexander the Great (a Greek) had conquered the known world in his time, and had imposed upon the world the Greek language. It was universal--even in Egypt. The Roman empire followed Alexander's. That was during the time of Christ. They gave to the world a system of world wide roads or transportation routes. One of the greatest centers of Christian civilizations centered in Alexandria in Africa. It was in Africa that the Montanists prospered. It was in Africa that Tertullian and Origen, and other of the church fathers lived.
    "Unaffected by Christianity?" Think again!

    Now you are into the time frame when the Catholic Church had its true beginnings--the time of Constantine. The Catholic Church can declare anything it wants. It can declare that blue is green and white is black, but that doesn't make it so. The fact remains that both O.T. and N.T. canons were determined long before this. The apostles themselves knew which books were Scripture and which were not, and passed this knowledge on to the early believers, so that by the end of the first century the early church knew what the canon of Scripture was. The early believers had the Word of God along. They had no need of the Catholic Church to determine anything.
    Conider Scripture:

    2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
    2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

    Peter says to his readers to be mindful of the words of the Apostles just as they would the prophets of the Old Testament and of the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words he places equal value on the writings of the apostles as he does that of the prophets. The writings of the prophets and of the apostles make up the Bible. And Peter indicates that he knows which ones are inspired up to this date.

    Read on:
    2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
    16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    Peter indicates that he knew which of Paul's epistles were Scripture and which were not. He knew they were inspired of God. He knew that there were those (like Catholics today) that would take his epistles out of context and "wrest them to their own destruction."
    The Scriptures were being inscripturated as they were being written, and being accepted as Scripture soon after being written--very soon.

    Foolishness. The Protestants never accepted any of the Apocryphal books in the first place. This is only your wishful thinking revisionist history.

    More foolishness. Some pre-reformation may have contained the Apocrypha for reading purposes only. Hey, my Bible has a Bible dictionary and a concordance in it. Does that make the dictionary and the concordance part of the canon of the Bible. Of course not! Neither did the inclusion of the Apocrypha make it part of the canon of their Bibles. It was put their for reading purposes only. Thus in most cases it was put in between the testaments, and not in chronological or historical order.

    I don't have a clue who you are talking about. Bible believing Christians don't try to remove any books of the canon of Scripture. Some unbelieving liberals may try and do so, but then they don't believe the Bible in the first place.

    The Catholic Church is made up of a bunch of sinful men who cannot do any infallible thing. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23). That includes all in the RCC. It doesn't matter what you reaffirm. The Canon of Scripture was completed in the first century no matter what the Catholic Church did. God didn't need the Catholic Church to do anything, and wouldn't, and didn't use such a sinful organization as that. He used Bible-believing Christians to preserve His word throughout the centuries, not the RCC that was content on burning his Word, as they did with William Tyndale.
    DHK
     
  18. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    You unwittingly are quoting the very criteria the council of Jamnia set up to determine what is scripture (ie 400bc the canon was set) The council of Jamnia established 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be considered scripture.

    1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).

    2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.

    3. The books had to be written in Palestine.

    4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

    These criteria eliminated the deuteros's as well as the Gospels. Maybe if I quote Jewish sources it will help you. Unless you believe they are part of this Catholic conspiracy to add books to the Bible.


    +++ (Jewish encyclopedia 1955 p. 593))" the appearance of the Septuagint (which the Jews of the Christian centuries rejected) was greeted enthusiasm everywhere; but with the rise of the Christian sect, and its adoption of the version of the Bible, the jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek texts this resentment eventually led Rabbi Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) to openly reject the Septuagint whitch contained the seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel)...The council rejected all of the New Testament as Apocrypha ... They also required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith."

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books "

    +++(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)"There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion"

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)."Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."

    Here is a non jewish source

    Encyclopaedia Britannica
    After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament.

    The reformers where only familiar with the Europen Jew who followed the canon of Jamnia not other Jews, and they utilized this same canon, they were probably unaware that this council whose canon they followed required all jews to curse the name of Jesus Christ.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You have defeated your own arguments. If these were the criteria set up by Jamnia, then they obviously knew what criteria the Jews used. If the books were written before 400 B.C., it would be impossible for the Apocrypha to be included in the O.T., as Catholics affirm, since it was written between 210 B.C. and 70 A.D. The books are totally spurious. They were not even written in Hebrew originally.
    DHK
     
  20. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Did you not even bother to read the quotes I gave you.

    The Sanhedrin of Jamnia set up artificial criteria to combat christianity to defend them and say they established these criteria because they were experts reaches new levels of ridiculousness. Do you also defend the Sanhedrins persecution of Jesus.

    If they are right in their criteria for scripture the christian new testament is completely false. Is it a God given rule that all scripture must be written in Hebrew, if you believe so throw out your Bible.

    Here are the quotes again

    +++ (Jewish encyclopedia 1955 p. 593))" the appearance of the Septuagint (which the Jews of the Christian centuries rejected) was greeted enthusiasm everywhere; but with the rise of the Christian sect, and its adoption of the version of the Bible, the jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek texts this resentment eventually led Rabbi Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) to openly reject the Septuagint whitch contained the seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel)...The council rejected all of the New Testament as Apocrypha ... They also required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith."

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books "

    +++(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)"There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion"

    +++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)."Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."

    Here is a non jewish source

    Encyclopaedia Britannica
    After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament.
     

Share This Page

Loading...