tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post8974886888324883500..comments2023-10-15T02:05:39.935-06:00Comments on As it is Written: Canon (not the thing you shoot)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14412247474926594732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post-68147374179655334892011-01-31T17:36:24.234-06:002011-01-31T17:36:24.234-06:00A note on the council of trent: I don't think ...A note on the council of trent: I don't think that Catholics would say the books were "added" at the council of trent, but "recognized." And as for books such as Tobit and Wisdom, that would seem closer to the truth. These books are noted by Cassiodorus in his "Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning," written in the 6th century. His work became the basis of much Medieval education, and writers such as Thomas Aquinas frequently cite books such as Wisdom as Scripture (Though it is true that writers such as Jerome listed them among "the apocrypha"). <br /><br />I look forward to your series.Jordan D. Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441625266850514022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post-35834456769582662562011-01-31T12:18:37.934-06:002011-01-31T12:18:37.934-06:00Good questions Jordan. The Council of Trent is the...Good questions Jordan. The Council of Trent is the typical fall-back position of protestants defending their canon. These books weren't recognized as "scripture" until centuries later, so we don't have to pay attention to them.<br /><br />You have drawn attention to one example among many which shows that the situation was significantly more complicated. I have to admit, it doesn't surprise me that Augustine, writing in North Africa, would have included those books as Scripture. Just because he did doesn't necessarily mean we should because there were plenty of people who did not read those books as "scripture." Either way, you raise an important point about the complexity of the question.<br /><br />I think as protestants it is important to ask why books were added at Trent. What was the motive? The logic? Why did they feel that after so long they needed to add to the canon. <br /><br />These are precisely the kinds of questions I want to address in a series of posts I'm planning. I hope others weigh in with their own questions or comments so that the series can be improved.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14412247474926594732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post-90009152055276380272011-01-29T11:50:15.050-06:002011-01-29T11:50:15.050-06:00Unless we think of "canon" as only canon...Unless we think of "canon" as only canon when an official ecumenical council recognizes it as so, which most would contest (since it would imply that the canon is only 400 years old), we have to wrestle with the fact that many of these books seemed to have been accepted quite early (at least in the West).Jordan D. Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441625266850514022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588016437086497122.post-20501604193824794252011-01-29T11:48:09.843-06:002011-01-29T11:48:09.843-06:00My question is: why was I taught that the "OT...My question is: why was I taught that the "OT Pseudepigrapha" was not in the "canon" until the Council of Trent (for Catholics), when St Augustine lists several of them as being authoritative Scripture in his De doctrina christiana, written b/t 395-425)? He lists Judith, Tobit, 1-2 Esdras, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, etc.Jordan D. Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441625266850514022noreply@blogger.com