Biblical Canon

[Rival]

Mostly aimed at Christians but Jewish input also valued:

Who decides which books are canonical and why?

What reason did Protestants have for throwing out 7 books that had been canon since around a thousand years prior?

Why did Catholics settle with their canon and strip away books the Orthodox use?

What are some thoughts about books telling the same stories from different views, i.e., Samuel+Kings/Chronicles or I Maccabees/II Maccabees?

 

[metis]

Mostly aimed at Christians but Jewish input also valued:

Who decides which books are canonical and why?

What reason did Protestants have for throwing out 7 books that had been canon since around a thousand years prior?

Why did Catholics settle with their canon and strip away books the Orthodox use?

What are some thoughts about books telling the same stories from different views, i.e., Samuel+Kings/Chronicles or I Maccabees/II Maccabees?

As we've seen in history, each denomination ultimately decides which books to canonize, and in Judaism historically this was also a rather contentious issue.

 

[pearl]

What reason did Protestants have for throwing out 7 books that had been canon since around a thousand years prior?

I think Luther eliminated those books that were not in original Hebrew following Council of Jamnia.

 

[Clear]

@metis said : "As we've seen in history, each denomination ultimately decides which books to canonize, and in Judaism historically this was also a rather contentious issue."

I think this is correct. In addition, each individual determines which books they read and find inspiration from. I think that the Holy Spirit can give inspiration to individuals when they are exposed to many thoughts and experiences from many sources and many books and many quotes from many sources. It is the spirit, ultimately that most efficiently inspires.

Clear
ειφιτωω

 

[syo]

Why did Catholics settle with their canon and strip away books the Orthodox use?

Because they both added to the creed. Shame.

 

[Rival]

Because they both added to the creed. Shame.

Dude, neither added to the Creed; both were one Church when the Creed was edited. Theology was still in flux when the Creed was finally finalised. It was the 300s.

 

[syo]

Dude, neither added to the Creed; both were one Church when the Creed was edited. It was still in flux when the Creed was finally finalised. It was the 300s.

Personally, I only accept the very first creed, which is very short. The one of Constantine the Great. Then they added. What a shame.

 

[Jimmy]

well if u believe what i believe that existence came into being not that long ago then i would answer your question with, God probably figured if humans had actually wrote them there would be variations.

 

[Harel13]

By Jews it wasn't about creating a canon and choosing what books to put there but rather it was looking at whatever corpus of Biblical-era texts there was and deciding which were prophetic in nature and which were solely man-made, wise as they might be. So it was more about separation or emphasis of differences than putting in. This was first done by the Men of the Great Assembly, among whom were included the last of the prophets, so they would have known how to recognize what was prophetic and what was not. Later some specific texts were debated upon by the successors of the Great Assembly, the sages.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See Development of the Hebrew Bible canon

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think Luther eliminated those books that were not in original Hebrew following Council of Jamnia.

And what gave Luther the authority to do so on his own?

 

[pearl]

And what gave Luther the authority to do so on his own?

I assume his own. Whose authority did he need? Those books he removed as non-inspired could have been later additions of the Septuagint. As for authority, who gave his followers the authority to change much of what Luther retained from the Church, especially concerning Mary?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I assume his own. Whose authority did he need? Those books he removed as non-inspired could have been later additions of the Septuagint. As for authority, who gave his followers the authority to change much of what Luther retained from the Church, especially concerning Mary?

Luther had no authority that I know of. Are you saying he was pope or something?

Look, I have no dog in this race. As far as I'm concerned, Christians would be better off removing the entire New Testament from your canon. I'm just saying that a mere individual like Luther has no authority to determine canon.

 

[Harel13]

Luther had no authority that I know of. Are you saying he was pope or something?

Look, I have no dog in this race. As far as I'm concerned, Christians would be better off removing the entire New Testament from your canon. I'm just saying that a mere individual like Luther has no authority to determine canon.

Technically any person can determine a canon. The only question is whether there will be people who will agree with that decision. In Luther's case, the answer is: A great many.

 

[pearl]

Luther had no authority that I know of. Are you saying he was pope or something?

No, that he took it upon himself.

Look, I have no dog in this race

As far as Luther is concerned, neither do I.

Look, Christians would be better off removing the entire New Testament from your canon. I'm just saying that a mere individual like Luther has no authority to determine canon.

We may agree that Luther had no authority. But, really, to remove the entire NT is a bit rash, as Catholics we retained those that Luther removed.