A canon question for Protestants

[Lief_Erikson]

I’ve been researching how the New Testament and Old Testament canons were established lately. In my research, I stumbled upon something I have trouble understanding from a Protestant perspective. Catholics won’t have any problem there, but Protestants might.

I don’t know why Protestants feel confident that their New Testament is complete and inspired. When I asked an Anglican pastor about it a few years ago, she said they took it on faith that the Holy Spirit guided the early church fathers in selecting the canon.

The problem, for me, lies in the fact that the early church councils that selected the New Testament canon (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) also claimed that the deuterocanonical books of the Bible were scripture. Protestants would disagree with that claim, putting the deuterocanonical books in the Apocrypha. They see the Council of Jamnia as more reliable for selecting the Old Testament canon.

However, if the early church councils incorrectly declared Apocryphal books to be scripture, it seems to follow that either the Holy Spirit was not leading them, or the fleshly side of humanity (or Satan) interfered with the God’s counsel with regard to their judgments about part of the canon. If the fleshly side of humanity was able to interfere with the fathers’ hearing during those councils, though, then how can we know that the other books they rejected deserved to be rejected and that the New Testament they accepted was truly all God-breathed?

 

[ChadS]

For the most part Protestants have a history problem. It’s worth noting that the Anglican minister you spoke with at least acknowledged the role of the Holy Spirit in establishing the canon, but then she fell right into the mess of having to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books.

Evangelical Protestants and fundamentalists will give an answer that the books are self-authenticating or that at one point or another the Biblical books quote each other (although this raises other issues as well). R.C. Sproul says that Protestants have a “fallible list of infallible books.” Meaning that despite all their best efforts they can’t know for sure whether they have all the right books in their Bible – meaning they may have made a mistake. From my vantage point hardly a ringing endorsement for a theological system.

Appeals to the Council of Jamnia are also problematic. This council was an attempt by the Romans to re-establish the Sanhedrian to give the Jews a juridical and legal council the Romans could control. The problem here is that this “council” if it can properly be called one didn’t have the authority to make any definitive pronouncements on the canon, whether for Jews or anybody else. From other sources I’ve read much of the council dealt with Christian issues and was decidedly hostile to Christianity so it makes sense that they would exclude some of the books being used predominantly by Christians (the deuterocanonical books).

Hope I helped a little.

ChadS

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’ve been researching how the New Testament and Old Testament canons were established lately. In my research, I stumbled upon something I have trouble understanding from a Protestant perspective. Catholics won’t have any problem there, but Protestants might.

I don’t know why Protestants feel confident that their New Testament is complete and inspired. When I asked an Anglican pastor about it a few years ago, she said they took it on faith that the Holy Spirit guided the early church fathers in selecting the canon.

The problem, for me, lies in the fact that the early church councils that selected the New Testament canon (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) also claimed that the deuterocanonical books of the Bible were scripture. Protestants would disagree with that claim, putting the deuterocanonical books in the Apocrypha. They see the Council of Jamnia as more reliable for selecting the Old Testament canon.

However, if the early church councils incorrectly declared Apocryphal books to be scripture, it seems to follow that either the Holy Spirit was not leading them, or the fleshly side of humanity (or Satan) interfered with the God’s counsel with regard to their judgments about part of the canon. If the fleshly side of humanity was able to interfere with the fathers’ hearing during those councils, though, then how can we know that the other books they rejected deserved to be rejected and that the New Testament they accepted was truly all God-breathed?

From everything I have read about the Council of Jamnia, if it can be called a council at all, did not discuss the deuterocanonical books and pretty much passed on the canon as they had received it.

I am a protestant and believe that, as RC Sproul explains, we have a fallible list of infallible books. In other words, I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so I don’t believe we have 100% certainty in this matter.

 

[bogeydogg]

Although R.C. Sproul did say that there is no doubt in his mind that the correct books were chosen and that there is nothing in historical theology about which he has more confidence than the Canon of Scripture.

When Sproul says a fallible collecting of infallible books he is refuting RCC doctrine that the Church herself is infallible. However he readily affirms that the collecting of books was so guided by the Spirit that it is an inerrant collecting if not infallible. That is why he was a part of the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy and you will not find many if any more thoroughly committed to Biblical inerrancy than R.C. Sproul.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Although R.C. Sproul did say that there is no doubt in his mind that the correct books were chosen and that there is nothing in historical theology about which he has more confidence than the Canon of Scripture.

When Sproul says a fallible collecting of infallible books he is refuting RCC doctrine that the Church herself is infallible. However he readily affirms that the collecting of books was so guided by the Spirit that it is an inerrant collecting if not infallible. That is why he was a part of the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy and you will not find many if any more thoroughly committed to Biblical inerrancy than R.C. Sproul.

I don’t have any doubt in my mind either but the fact remains that I don’t have infallible certainty on this matter.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Although R.C. Sproul did say that there is no doubt in his mind that the correct books were chosen and that there is nothing in historical theology about which he has more confidence than the Canon of Scripture.

When Sproul says a fallible collecting of infallible books he is refuting RCC doctrine that the Church herself is infallible. However he readily affirms that the collecting of books was so guided by the Spirit that it is an inerrant collecting if not infallible. That is why he was a part of the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy and you will not find many if any more thoroughly committed to Biblical inerrancy than R.C. Sproul.

If it was an inerrant collecting of books that occurred, then how come the seven deuterocanonical books were on the lists of the councils that completed the collecting?

Pwrlftr:

From everything I have read about the Council of Jamnia, if it can be called a council at all, did not discuss the deuterocanonical books and pretty much passed on the canon as they had received it.

I am a protestant and believe that, as RC Sproul explains, we have a fallible list of infallible books. In other words, I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so I don’t believe we have 100% certainty in this matter.

That position looks to me like the logical and consistent position a Protestant would have to have.

ChadS, yes, what you said does help. I would like to know more about the Council of Jamnia. I hear so many different things about it. Some Catholics accuse it of having gotten rid of books used by Christians in order to debunk Christianity. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I am sure that there would have been anti-Christian sentiment in the council.

Do you know of any resources (preferably online) that give much of the sources regarding Jamnia that are known?

 

[JMBNH]

The only books declared canonical by Pharisees as far as I know are the following (using the Jewish names and divisions of books for convenience)

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The 12 Minor Prophets

i.e. the Law and the Prophets, Sadduccees only accpeted the Law. Though I doubt you’d find anyone who’d reject the Psalms, there was no official list of sacred writings in Hebrew, the Septuagint used the same canon as the Catholic OT (though some versions included 3rd and 4th Ezra, 3rd and 4th Maccabees, Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh, it’s thought these were largely added later, and 4th Ezra and 4th Maccabees were likely writted after Jesus’s birth (and possibly death and resurrection) anyway). Interesting that they largely went into the Council of Jamnia wanting 24 books (believe it was a tradition from when the 12 Minor Prophets were counted separately, though not sure), meaning that they needed 11 more books (1st and 2nd Chronicles and 1st and 2nd Ezra being classed as one).

Thus came the list of Writings in a completely jumbled order (unlike the logical Septuagint order), with books not originally written in Hebrew theoretically excluded (though parts of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic anyway), though some books that were written in Hebrew for definite (as far as we know all the deuterocanonicals were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, though maybe 2 Maccabees was originally Greek?). Some books were only excluded on political grounds (1 Maccabees because the Romans and Rabbis didn’t want the people getting ideas and leading another rebellion, like the one that led to the destruction of the temple).

 

[Pwrlftr]

That position looks to me like the logical and consistent position a Protestant would have to have.

If you reject infallibility that seems to me to be the only logical position to have on the subject.

BTW, FF Bruce, Roger Beckwith, and Lee MacDonald as well as many others all say that Jamnia never discussed the deuterocanonicals and handed on the canon as they had received it.

 

[ChadS]

Do you know of any resources (preferably online) that give much of the sources regarding Jamnia that are known?

Lief,

Try this resource from Steve Ray, who has an excellent site full of good writings.

catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Jamnia%20for%20Website.doc

It’s not a very long read but it’s good. Also I’m sure Dave Armstrong’s blog has something but I can’t find it right now.

ChadS

 

[Kay_Cee]

Evangelical Protestants and fundamentalists will give an answer that the books are self-authenticating

I’ve never understood this. How can any writing be self-authenticating? Could someone please explain the process of how a writing authenticates itself?

I am a protestant and believe that, as RC Sproul explains, we have a fallible list of infallible books. In other words, I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so I don’t believe we have 100% certainty in this matter.

This is another thing I’ve never understood: the “fallible collection of infallible books.” If that’s the case, how do we know for certain that, say, the gospel of Matthew belongs in the canon and the gospel of Thomas does not?

And if we can’t tell for certain, doesn’t that put every book of the Bible in doubt? And how can a religion be “Bible-based” if every book it is based upon is in doubt?

I’m not trying to start an argument; I’ve just never understood this. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is another thing I’ve never understood: the “fallible collection of infallible books.” If that’s the case, how do we know for certain that, say, the gospel of Matthew belongs in the canon and the gospel of Thomas does not?

And if we can’t tell for certain, doesn’t that put every book of the Bible in doubt? And how can a religion be “Bible-based” if every book it is based upon is in doubt?

I’m not trying to start an argument; I’ve just never understood this. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

It rules out infallibility of any pope, council or other person/group so yes, it’s possible that a mistake was made.

 

[Kay_Cee]

It rules out infallibility of any pope, council or other person/group so yes, it’s possible that a mistake was made.

But then, when you read the Bible, how do you know you’re reading the word of God? When you read Christ’s words in the Bible (or perhaps we should say words attributed to Christ), how do you know what you’re reading is true? And if you can’t know it’s true, can you confidently base your salvation on it?

I’m also hoping someone can still answer my other question: How can a writing be self-authenticating?

It seems to me that God (being all-knowing) would realize what a dilemma this creates and would have taken steps to ensure that we can approach scripture with confidence in its inerrancy.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m also hoping someone can still answer my other question: How can a writing be self-authenticating?

I don’t know how most Protestants would answer this, but for myself, I did have a time in my life where for a little while, I was doubting the Book of Revelation’s place in the canon. Then the Holy Spirit spoke to me and told me it was from God. So the “self-authentication” can occur, sometimes, I expect.

On the other hand, that same Spirit is right now leading me toward the Catholic canon, so how reliable is the previous experience?

The common disagreement amongst the early church fathers about what books precisely belonged in the canon is enough for me to have a lot of trouble with the self-authentication argument. Especially when one considers also the power Mormonism has over people, and such.

It seems to me that God (being all-knowing) would realize what a dilemma this creates and would have taken steps to ensure that we can approach scripture with confidence in its inerrancy.

That seems logical to me too.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,

Try this resource from Steve Ray, who has an excellent site full of good writings.

catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Jamnia%20for%20Website.doc

It’s not a very long read but it’s good. Also I’m sure Dave Armstrong’s blog has something but I can’t find it right now.

ChadS

I’ll read the article. Thanks!

 

[MarcoPolo]

When Sproul says a fallible collecting of infallible books he is refuting RCC doctrine that the Church herself is infallible.

Can you rephrase this? Sproul is an interesting character, but I don’t follow what he is saying here…

 

[Kay_Cee]

I don’t know how most Protestants would answer this, but for myself, I did have a time in my life where for a little while, I was doubting the Book of Revelation’s place in the canon. Then the Holy Spirit spoke to me and told me it was from God. So the “self-authentication” can occur, sometimes, I expect.

Thank you for your response.

Doesn’t “self-authentication” mean the writings would authenticate themselves? I think you’re speaking of authentication by the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, that same Spirit is right now leading me toward the Catholic canon, so how reliable is the previous experience?

Well, since I’m Catholic, I don’t have a problem with you being led toward the Catholic canon. I’m unsure, however, how much credence we can give to “the Holy Spirit spoke to me”, even if it leads you in the direction I would like to see you go. After all, “the Holy Spirit spoke to me” is often cited by Protestants as the reason for rejecting Catholic teachings and the Catholic canon.

I’m not saying it can’t happen that the Holy Spirit would speak to you, leading you into the Catholic Church (and I do believe the Spirit leads us to Christ). But if the Holy Spirit spoke to me, the first thing I would do is look for verification that it actually was the Holy Spirit–and I would do this by comparing what I had been told with Church teachings and by consulting my Spiritual Director. After all, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”, so any truth the Holy Spirit tells me wouldn’t contradict Church doctrine.

The common disagreement amongst the early church fathers about what books precisely belonged in the canon is enough for me to have a lot of trouble with the self-authentication argument. Especially when one considers also the power Mormonism has over people, and such.

Oh yes, me too! That’s why there’s a *need *for an extra-Biblical authority.

That seems logical to me too.

Glad to know we are in agreement!

 

[Pwrlftr]

But then, when you read the Bible, how do you know you’re reading the word of God? When you read Christ’s words in the Bible (or perhaps we should say words attributed to Christ), how do you know what you’re reading is true? And if you can’t know it’s true, can you confidently base your salvation on it?

I’m also hoping someone can still answer my other question: How can a writing be self-authenticating?

It seems to me that God (being all-knowing) would realize what a dilemma this creates and would have taken steps to ensure that we can approach scripture with confidence in its inerrancy.

You don’t have to have infallible certainty to know something or to have confidence that something or a belief is correct.

For example, you are a fallible human who has (I assume you are catholic) used his judgement to come to the conclusion that the Catholic church is what it claims to be.

 

[ChadS]

I’m also hoping someone can still answer my other question: How can a writing be self-authenticating?

When I was growing up as a Protestant I heard several different versions of the “self-authenticating” argument.

I believe primarily it was understood to mean that all the books of the Bible were of extremely high moral character and didn’t contradict each other. Meaning that the Biblical books presented a consistent and unified message that didn’t deviate from one or the other. Basically it was sort of assumed that books included in the Bible were just “obvious.”

Also, I heard the argument that the OT books were chosen since they were either quoted by NT authors and were part of the Hebrew Canon, supposedly in use in Israel during the 1st century. Our ministers never made mention of the Council of Jamnia as a justification for the OT canon.

If we had any Bible with the deuterocanonical books they were always lumped together at the end of the Bible as an appendix. The general consensus was that they were good to read had good moral character, interesting for the light in shed on the “inter-testamental period” but of little value beyond that to the believer.

We never said it out loud but we couldn’t say exactly how or why we had which books in the Bible. We knew the canon was closed but it wasn’t clear why. Sometimes a weak appeal to “tradition” was made – but it never went much beyond that.

From a Protestant view point you can see why this question is hard to answer. There is no one dominant answer, sometimes even the best responses can seem nebulous and unexact. It took me quite a few years to realize that the Catholic Church had God given authority and the right to say what was or wasn’t in the canon. I’m much better off for it, too.

ChadS

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank you for your response.

Doesn’t “self-authentication” mean the writings would authenticate themselves? I think you’re speaking of authentication by the Holy Spirit.

I guess. I don’t know what else self-authentication would mean to a Protestant, though . They might be thinking of something different.

Well, since I’m Catholic, I don’t have a problem with you being led toward the Catholic canon. I’m unsure, however, how much credence we can give to “the Holy Spirit spoke to me”, even if it leads you in the direction I would like to see you go. After all, “the Holy Spirit spoke to me” is often cited by Protestants as the reason for rejecting Catholic teachings and the Catholic canon.

I agree. Putting religious experience above reliable spiritual authority is a very bad move. In fact, it is the seed of relativism.

I think that the Lord dealt with me in the way he did, with regard to the Book of Revelation, because as a Protestant I didn’t have any other authority about such matters to rely on.

That isn’t to say people don’t make mistakes. Some also hear from demons, and some hear their own imaginations. If the scripture is open for anyone to interpret in their own way, demonic or human interpretations are more likely to spread than they are if there is a Magisterium to protect the Church against errors.

I think that the Spirit is glad to speak to believers on all kinds of matters, though. I see the Spirit as a Counselor for people as individuals as well as a Counselor for the pope and the Magisterium.

I’m not saying it can’t happen that the Holy Spirit would speak to you, leading you into the Catholic Church (and I do believe the Spirit leads us to Christ). But if the Holy Spirit spoke to me, the first thing I would do is look for verification that it actually was the Holy Spirit–and I would do this by comparing what I had been told with Church teachings and by consulting my Spiritual Director. After all, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”, so any truth the Holy Spirit tells me wouldn’t contradict Church doctrine.

Good; I think that’s exactly the right thing to do. Unfortunately for me, all my family is Protestant, and the two spiritual directors I’ve been turning to for years are Protestant. I have told one of them about my shift in perspective toward Catholicism, and she gave me some ordinary Protestant anti-Catholic arguments. She’s pretty elderly and doesn’t like debate, and I don’t want to upset her, so I didn’t argue the matter.

My other spiritual director was an Anglican pastor. She stopped being my spiritual director two or three years ago, though. I still occasionally ask her questions, though. I might talk to her again soon, though, and if I do, I’ll talk to her about this.

I also get a lot of spiritual counsel from my father. He is a very wise and Spirit filled man. Unfortunately, my talks with him about this have underlying tension, and have occasionally turned into angry debates. We have had some good talks about this, and I’m glad the communication lines are still open, but there also have been a couple explosions. He and I are both responsible for those conversation crashes. We have generally agreed on just about everything until now.

So counsel is a tricky business for me at present, though I am getting it. I don’t tell my spiritual directors about the experiences with the Lord that I’ve had relating to this, though. That would be pretty much telling them to change their beliefs because the Lord says so, which would be prideful on my part and a poor approach.

I don’t know any Catholics outside of the Internet. So I’m getting counsel, but that’s a tricky and sticky situation for me right now.

Thankfully, the Lord has been gracious enough to confirm my present move toward Catholicism through my Protestant sister. She had a dream from the Lord about me that she didn’t know how to interpret, so she told it to me, and it related directly to what I was going through. The fact that she had a dream supporting what I was going through greatly boosted my confidence. My sister has a strong personal relationship with Christ.

I do compare my religious experiences with scripture, though. And I have also started to compare them with church teaching.

 

[inthecloud]

I’ve never understood this. How can any writing be self-authenticating? Could someone please explain the process of how a writing authenticates itself?

I thing that the whole selfauthentificating argument have the same invincible logic of OSAS/perpetual assurance.