Bible History question

[ElizaE]

While at dinner with a few house-mates, we were discussing religion. At one point I mentioned that of course the Catholic Church “put together” the Bible and the Protestants took out the books they didn’t like later. My friend than said something about Constantine doing the same thing meaning he took out books that he didn’t like. Is this true?

 

[tkdnick]

ElizaE:

While at dinner with a few house-mates, we were discussing religion. At one point I mentioned that of course the Catholic Church “put together” the Bible and the Protestants took out the books they didn’t like later. My friend than said something about Constantine doing the same thing meaning he took out books that he didn’t like. Is this true?

Constantine might have taken books out, but the Catholic Church has held the same books to be canon for a LONG time.

The Constantine argument is something that many Protestants bring up. They seem to think that since he was Catholic and made Catholic the state religion, that it was really him who controlled the Catholic Church. Not so.

 

[BM5]

I know that someone (Protestor I think), took out Tobias declaring it to be irrelevant. I couldn"t disagree more.
Everyone should study it especially the extreemly important lesson on Marriage.

 

[Lost_Found]

It’s just more spinoff from the DaVinci Code nonsense which mistated Constantine’s role. Constantine was an emperor/warrior and not a theologian. He didn’t have the credentials to study scripture. His role was to create a safer environment for Christians and the Church.

Here is a brief description of the Henry Graham book

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14417

And here is a link to the book itself, written almost a hundred years ago, on-line.

geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html#preface

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you.

Even if he did take them out so what he is no differant than those now a days who do it due to the non of them have or had the Authority to do so. Our Fathers of the Church past and present are to preserve and keep Gods Word intact written and not written(something else the protestor do not like to hear) , not seperate or change it to say what we it to.
Protesants do not understand the role of the Pope or Bishops. They want to believe that the Popes have and do change things to justify their beliefs that we went astray. I were one at one time and that is how I was taught.

Peace be with you
Ron

 

[TEME525]

I think you’re friend doesn’t have a good understanding of Church History. The Canon wasn’t developed over night nor were the books held to be Inspired choosen arbitrally. I came over centuries of discussion and debate. Yes Constantine did have some influence but he was very much in the battle against Arianism and in the case of the Canon had some influence.

But, I think it is important to understant what were some of the factors which lead the Church (such as the Council of Hippo) to say which books were inspired and which wer not. One element was the content of the works themselves. Many of the books or Gospels we here about today (such as the Gospel of Thomas or Peter or James) clearly showed the influenced of various heresies and were rejected. Also these works often contained parts that were clearly irrelevant to the Gospel message, and were rejected.

Another factor was the use of a book by the Church in general especially in the Liturgy and the writings of the Church Fathers.

As for the OT books, the Church, from Apostolic Times accepted and used the Greek Translation = the Septugint Translations. When you read a letter of Paul and he refers to Scripture, he was refering to the Septugint, not the Hebrew Canon that wasn’t established by Jewish leaders until the 2nd Century.

Finally, it is right and proper to say that the Canon was established by the Catholic Church. It was not the sole action of the Church of the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) but the Eastern Rite as well, which is why today both the Eastern and Western Church (even though we are not in full communion with each other) accepts the same Canon that for some reason was rejected by the Protestant Church in the 1500’s. One could ask how could the East and West get it wrong for such a long time and were did the inspiration come from to enlighten Luther, amoung other, to suddenly see the light?

I hope this all to brief response gives you a little better understanding about the Canon.

 

[Mystophilus]

TEME525:

I think you’re friend doesn’t have a good understanding of Church History.

Who does, these days?

As for the OT books, the Church, from Apostolic Times accepted and used the Greek Translation = the Septugint Translations. When you read a letter of Paul and he refers to Scripture, he was refering to the Septugint, not the Hebrew Canon that wasn’t established by Jewish leaders until the 2nd Century.

Most, but not all, of the quotations in the NT texts come from the Septuagint. As regards the ‘Hebrew Canon’, the first part of the Tanakh, i.e., the Torah, was set in the C5th BC. The second, i.e., the Ketuvim, was set in the C2nd. It was only the last part, the Neviim, which was not set until some time between AD 90 and 110 (opinions differ as to exactly when).

Finally, it is right and proper to say that the Canon was established by the Catholic Church. It was not the sole action of the Church of the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) but the Eastern Rite as well, which is why today both the Eastern and Western Church (even though we are not in full communion with each other) accepts the same Canon that for some reason was rejected by the Protestant Church in the 1500’s. One could ask how could the East and West get it wrong for such a long time and were did the inspiration come from to enlighten Luther, amoung other, to suddenly see the light?

The Eastern Orthodox Church’s canon is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church’s, in that it includes the Odes, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon. Their canon, however, was last set in 1672. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also includes Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and a few others. Luther and the other original Protestant leaders reverted to the Tanakh, which still included every OT passage which was quoted in the NT.

 

[Mystophilus]

ElizaE:

While at dinner with a few house-mates, we were discussing religion. At one point I mentioned that of course the Catholic Church “put together” the Bible and the Protestants took out the books they didn’t like later. My friend than said something about Constantine doing the same thing meaning he took out books that he didn’t like. Is this true?

The Bible canon was not yet properly established when Constantine died in AD 337. Jerome’s Vulgate did more than anything else to set the canon, in 385, but discussion and revision continued for centuries.

The early Protestant reformers did not so much “take books out” as revert to an earlier canon, essentially that of Athanasius of Alexandria (from AD 367), which used the Hebrew Tanakh as the basis of the OT. This was what Jerome wanted to use, but he was overruled.

 

[TOME]

Mystophilus, Thanks for your corrections. With the section on the NT I would say I was too parochical, I was thinking of the Eastern Rite Churches still united with Rome - but now that I think of it I could be wrong on that. But the point I was making is that both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches accept the same books of the OT as Inspired, and didnot reject the books Luther did. So the difference between East and West is more of a question of addition and not subtraction. As far as the Ethopian Church, the most I want to say here is that because of my limited knowledge on it I better not comment here.

Just a little side note, when the Council of Trent finalized the Canon for the Rome Church, many were surprized that the two books of Macabees (3 & 4) were left out, but I could never find out why these two “popular” readings were left out by Trent.

As for the OT, my fault in that I assumed and didn’t explained, like or as well as you have, about the question over the acceptance of the the later books - Neviim .

Thanks.

 

[Mystophilus]

TOME:

Just a little side note, when the Council of Trent finalized the Canon for the Rome Church, many were surprized that the two books of Macabees (3 & 4) were left out, but I could never find out why these two “popular” readings were left out by Trent.

Without a transcript of the actual proceedings at Trent, it would be hard to say. However, I think that they may have been left out because they are of quite a different character from 1 and 2, which are both concerned with the Maccabean Revolt: 3 and 4 address different subjects and are widely regarded as being of later authorship, as is Book 5.

Thanks.

Thank you: for me, this is just another opportunity to learn. I had never heard of the fifth one before today.

 

[Bishopite]

Mystophilus:

The Bible canon was not yet properly established when Constantine died in AD 337. Jerome’s Vulgate did more than anything else to set the canon, in 385, but discussion and revision continued for centuries.

The canon issue wasn’t settled until the council (or synod) of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. This is the first time that the canon, as we have it in totality today, including, I might add the dueterocanonicals (which were in the LXX or septuagint), were completely and authoritatively cited.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage affirmed what was first cited by the council of Rome in 382 and there hasn’t been ANY revision of the canon after that time,save from the reformers demphasizing the deuterocanonicals not considering them “inspired” and eventually in the early 1800’s through time future generations of Protestants took out the dueterocanonicals out of the indexes of their Bibles. I think it was the English Bible society of 1830 that was the first to take them out completely. The 1611 edition of the KJV has the deuterocanonicals and some people even posess original copies today. Trent infallibly proclaimed the canon as closed although many say the council of Florence did so a century or so before.

The early Protestant reformers did not so much “take books out” as revert to an earlier canon, essentially that of Athanasius of Alexandria (from AD 367), which used the Hebrew Tanakh as the basis of the OT. This was what Jerome wanted to use, but he was overruled.

Well, Luther certainly did want a change in the canon and didn’t consider the dueterocanonicals part of the canon. Protestants eventually “took them out” in the 1800’s. It isn’t proper to say that the Catholic Church made the canon but it IS proper to say that the Catholic Church authoritatively recognized what books were inspired and which ones were spurious.

As far as Athanasius, he was the first “person” to quote the 27 books of the NT as we have them today, however, he didn’t have the authority, nor did Jerome to decide what was to be cited as the canon. Only the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome (which was Pope Damasus) had that authority.

The problem with people exegeting Scripture without any authority or final arbiter to make a final decision as to which Scriptures are primary over others is that it doesn’t get us to a conclusion, a finality of what Scripture is saying.

For example, many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals assert that in order to be “saved” ALL one has to do is what Romans 10:9-10 says…

“for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.”

Here in Romans it says nothing about repentence yet they say that’s all we need to do.

Yet Acts 3:19 says,“Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away”

1 Chapter earlier we have baptism in Acts 2:38…
"Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
We need all of them, repent, believe,baptism.

Also in John 14:28 Jesus said…

“You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.”
Compare that to John 8:58…

“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.”

Is the Father greater than Jesus making Jesus less in substance than the Father as Mormons, JW’s, Muslims, Unitarians assert in John 14:28 or is Jesus coequal in substance (homoosius), the “I AM” of John 8:58 and fully God?

Well, obviously John 8:58 is the PRIMARY verse over John 14:28 since Jesus is speaking of the Father being positionally greater than He; much like the president is positionally greater than me, but he and I are equal in our nature as humans.

So, your question as to who decides which verses are primary over others? I would say, this makes a great case for the papacy!

 

[Mystophilus]

Bishopite:

Well, obviously John 8:58 is the PRIMARY verse over John 14:28 since Jesus is speaking of the Father being positionally greater than He; much like the president is positionally greater than me, but he and I are equal in our nature as humans.

So, your question as to who decides which verses are primary over others? I would say, this makes a great case for the papacy!

Excuse me, but what makes a great case for the papacy?

 

[Bishopite]

Mystophilus:

Excuse me, but what makes a great case for the papacy?

I was making the point that Mormons and JW’s cite John 14:28 when Jesus said…the Father is greater than I… as a verse that would take primacy over others that point to His deity i.e. John 8:58…before Abraham was I AM…, and without any final arbiter to say which verse takes presidence over the other, how then do we get to the truth? The papacy is what gets us to that truth.

That’s what makes a great case for the papacy

 

[Mystophilus]

Bishopite:

I was making the point that Mormons and JW’s cite John 14:28 when Jesus said…the Father is greater than I… as a verse that would take primacy over others that point to His deity i.e. John 8:58…before Abraham was I AM…, and without any final arbiter to say which verse takes presidence over the other, how then do we get to the truth? The papacy is what gets us to that truth.

That’s what makes a great case for the papacy

If you wish it to, I suppose it does.

Alternatively, one can simply take the text as it is, including all of its complications, and consider all of the comments of other writers (e.g., the Fathers), and not seek to foreclose judegement upon any of it.

 

[Bishopite]

Mystophilus]If you wish it to, I suppose it does.

Uh…no that would be subjective truth which isn’t rational. My truth is objectively true, not because I want it to be, but because all of the evidence makes it so. Otherwise may I ask, specifically who’s interpretation, exegesis of Scripture do we follow?

Alternatively, one can simply take the text as it is, including all of its complications, and consider all of the comments of other writers (e.g., the Fathers), and not seek to foreclose judegement upon any of it.

Could you please specifically define for me what “simply take the text as it is” means?

And if one looks at the early Church fathers one doesn’t find the same theology as Protestants; it just didn’t exist.

And…if we can’t “foreclose judgement” on what certain passages of Scripture say or WHO is the final arbiter as to its meaning, then the best exegetes and scholars can make their best guesses to who’s position is correct, which doesn’t get us to the truth.
That’s why God established Peter as the head of the Church with succession and the apostles with successors that give finality to truth. All due deference, if you followed your position to its logical/final ending it makes truth untenable