tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post7850498853286902315..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45239131022477408882017-04-24T12:45:15.187-07:002017-04-24T12:45:15.187-07:00Very well said!Very well said!site maintenancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03157943951747207918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-91073509156748470942016-07-13T11:14:15.374-07:002016-07-13T11:14:15.374-07:00Anil,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you ...Anil, <br /><br />Thanks for your comment. I agree with you overa. My goal was to get Catholics to realize that the passing on of NT books, as well as the collecting of them, is part of Tradition from the very beginning. There's too casual of statments on EWTN and such that give the impression the Bible didn't already substantially exist and was basically invented in the 4th century. The books you listed were not a random pile of books, but rather were passed on as a collection, so at most there are discrepancies in canons, which is a problem for Protestants but not for Catholics or Orthodox (for the reasons you indicated). Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-66472070443392619712016-07-13T06:53:07.126-07:002016-07-13T06:53:07.126-07:00Sorry to be verbose, but I forgot one more thing. ...Sorry to be verbose, but I forgot one more thing. The canon of scripture is crucial for Protestants since they derive doctrine from it. It's less important for Catholics or the Orthodox, since scripture more used as a source of inspiration and validation of Tradition. This is clearly seen when comparing the use of scripture in popular Protestant Catechisms and the new Catholic Catechism. In one, scripture is used for proof texting doctrinal statements, in the other scripture is used to weave together a consistent story, along with quotes of saints and previous councils that puts doctrines in context.<br />Anil Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223235205492924930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-38787148614497199922016-07-13T06:31:40.207-07:002016-07-13T06:31:40.207-07:00That's not entirely true.
To this day, 1 Cle...That's not entirely true. <br /><br />To this day, 1 Clement is considered scripture in some Orthodox Churches, as are Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 2 Esdras, etc. There are even variations between different patriarchates between the versions of the Septuagint they accept, so even if two patriarchates have the same canon, there will be differences in the texts and many faithful Orthodox theologians has no problems admitting there may be errors in scripture. Also, strictly speaking, the canon of scripture is still not closed for the Orthodox Churches (or even Jews today -- compare the canons of Sephardic and Beta Jews) even though different patriarchates have a preferred list of books that exists in the Bibles of that patriarchate. <br /><br />But from the Orthodox perspective none of this matters. What counts is that the Tradition of the Church is sound. If some books, such as 2 Esdras contain questionable content from a casual reading or even minor errors, it doesn't matter as long as Tradition provides an Orthodox reading through the Church.<br /><br />Such a perspective is jarring to a Protestant, and unsettling to a Western Catholic that likes things neatly categorized because we've gotten spoiled by 1000 extra years of doctrinal development, but that is closer to how the early Church had to live. If it weren't for heretics like Marcion and the Protestant Revolution, we might still not have a solidified canon, because strictly speaking, it's not necessary so long as the Tradition is strong..<br />Anil Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223235205492924930noreply@blogger.com