Bible origin - Evangelical perspective

[dronald]

Interesting…what did you do for books like Mark

We have extremely early attestation from Papias in regards to Mark writing what was spoken by Peter.

Seeing that we know Peter rehearsed Mark to Mark, we can trust it.

and Hebrews where the author is unknown.

Hebrews written by someone close to Timothy, is attested to early and is really one heck of a book. I don’t know anyone who would want to reject it; but perhaps the author was hidden for a reason. Who knows.

Would you personally, if you were not Catholic but rather Protestant reject Hebrews?

How do you account for manuscripts that may not exist today because they were rejected by the Catholic/Orthodox Church nearly 2000 years ago.

It’s hard for me to comment on something that doesn’t exist and we know nothing about.

 

[Jon_S_1]

We have extremely early attestation from Papias in regards to Mark writing what was spoken by Peter.

Seeing that we know Peter rehearsed Mark to Mark, we can trust it.

Hebrews written by someone close to Timothy, is attested to early and is really one heck of a book. I don’t know anyone who would want to reject it; but perhaps the author was hidden for a reason. Who knows.

Would you personally, if you were not Catholic but rather Protestant reject Hebrews?

It’s hard for me to comment on something that doesn’t exist and we know nothing about.

I’m quite certain Martin Luther rejected Hebrews.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m pretty quick to dismiss the idea that “Catholics gave us the Bible” because we don’t exactly accept the same Bible. As we know, Evangelicals don’t use the Deuterocanonical books in their Scriptures but we think they are important. So right off the bat it would be false to say that Catholics made the choice for us and we all followed; even the Orthodox Church’s have some extra books and do not “submit” to the RCC’s authority.

So is that the argument that is being made? Or is the argument specifically in regards to the New Testament?

I once wrote up (and I wish I had saved it) that it’s pretty obvious based on history which books belong and which ones don’t. I often ask which books you as Catholics would exclude had you not found the CC?

Imagine yourself an Evangelical and you did your research in Early Church history of the Canon; whether it be in regards to dating, inspiration and Theology. Which books would you exclude?

Also, which books would you seek to include that aren’t included?

Whether you like it or not; Faith is the strongest argument for Catholics and Protestants alike. John on Patmos could have been some crazy rich man in Jerusalem who forged an Apocalypse document. There’s really no reason to accept it unless you actually believe that a man named John, on an island called Patmos saw a vision and recorded it. If you don’t believe that, you wouldn’t be Christian to begin with most likely. And if you do believe it, it’s not because “Catholics gave us the Bible” rather it’s because we don’t fall for lies and believe he was honestly a man named John on Patmos writing truth.

As stated before, I wrote a big thing here about each book in the NT as well as the books that were rejected and why. I should have saved it, but it was over a thousand posts ago probably. Lol. Basically I traced how all of the Gospels are connected. John written by John, Matthew by Matthew, Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul; and I showed how Paul quotes Luke, how Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture, how the author of Hebrews was close to Timothy, and we accept Revelation because we truly believe it being by John. (Likewise 2 Peter from Peter, Timothy/Titus from Paul)

3 John doesn’t even mention the name of Jesus.

 

[dronald]

I’m quite certain Martin Luther rejected Hebrews.

I’ll have to check the Lutheran Bible. Usually Lutherans explain this quite well, much better than I. But the contention Catholics give is it was due to his Theology that he thought it would be excluded. From my readings Lutherans usually deny this or have a way of explaining it.

The point is, it wasn’t because of lack of early attestation.

“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”. [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.
-Luther’s Antilegomena

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

3 John doesn’t even mention the name of Jesus.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’ll have to check the Lutheran Bible. Usually Lutherans explain this quite well, much better than I. But the contention Catholics give is it was due to his Theology that he thought it would be excluded. From my readings Lutherans usually deny this or have a way of explaining it.

The point is, it wasn’t because of lack of early attestation.

“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”. [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.
-Luther’s Antilegomena

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

In thinking on your posts a bit I have a couple thoughts.

First, if Luther’s theology led him to want to reject several books, why couldn’t he?

Second, if each individual, yourself included, studied the history and came up with the same 27 books, I’d find that unbelievable. The only reason people all have the same New Testament is because people generally DO NOT do this.

Third, you have a theology you ascribe too, evangelicalism, and that view colors how you view the early texts. I may very well want to include Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp or 1 Clement in my New Testament. Why can I not under your view!?

I am certain there is many a once saved always saved Protestant who would be happy to do away with the book of James.

 

[dronald]

In thinking on your posts a bit I have a couple thoughts.

First, if Luther’s theology led him to want to reject several books, why couldn’t he?

He could. Anyone could; but no one really does.

Second, if each individual, yourself included, studied the history and came up with the same 27 books, I’d find that unbelievable. The only reason people all have the same New Testament is because people generally DO NOT do this.

I honestly disagree with this. I find secular historians to ignore tonnes of evidence from ECF’s and their claims.

Third, you have a theology you ascribe too, evangelicalism, and that view colors how you view the early texts. I may very well want to include Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp or 1 Clement in my New Testament. Why can I not under your view!?

The better question is, “Why doesn’t anyone?” Because it’s very rare that anyone does.

I am certain there is many a once saved always saved Protestant who would be happy to do away with the book of James.

OSAS people are usually very zealous for their Bible; so I really do doubt it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I find the argument so compelling I cannot even imagine a counter. Thus my curiosity if heightened. However I am having difficulty finding popular Evenagelical/Protestant counters to this argument. Can anyone point me to one/more?

I can point you in the opposite direction. The well respected protestant Evangelical author, Dr. F.F. Bruce, wrote The Canon of Scripture. It is absolutely the best book on the subject that I have ever read. I have cited it to many protestants, who are unable to argue with such an unimpeachable protestant theologian as Dr. Bruce.

I’m astonished that he could remain protestant after writing this book. I mean, this guy is no dummy! He’s brilliant.

I guess the whole “Church gave us the Canon” argument just isn’t as convincing to others as it is to us.

 

[Jon_S_1]

He could. Anyone could; but no one really does.

I honestly disagree with this. I find secular historians to ignore tonnes of evidence from ECF’s and their claims.

The better question is, “Why doesn’t anyone?” Because it’s very rare that anyone does.

OSAS people are usually very zealous for their Bible; so I really do doubt it.

Well I guess since Protestants are united on everything the Bible says, and what it all means
That they would also be united in their consistency of accepting the same canon of scripture.

#proofisinthepudding

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can point you in the opposite direction. The well respected protestant Evangelical author, Dr. F.F. Bruce, wrote The Canon of Scripture. It is absolutely the best book on the subject that I have ever read. I have cited it to many protestants, who are unable to argue with such an unimpeachable protestant theologian as Dr. Bruce.

I’m astonished that he could remain protestant after writing this book. I mean, this guy is no dummy! He’s brilliant.

I guess the whole “Church gave us the Canon” argument just isn’t as convincing to others as it is to us.

David-

How does it compare with:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Frankenfurter]

I find one of our very best arguments that illustrates Church Authority to be the fact that it was the Church who compiled and gave us the Bible, led by the Holy Spirit at the Council of Nicea.

If it were not for the Authority of the Church, how could we know we have the right compilation of Books?

I find the argument so compelling I cannot even imagine a counter. Thus my curiosity if heightened. However I am having difficulty finding popular Evenagelical/Protestant counters to this argument. Can anyone point me to one/more?

One simple counter that some make is that they agree that the church had authority at that time. That they were in fact the one true church of Jesus when they wrote/compiled the bible. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But, over time they became corrupted and lost their authority. Many folks during the reformation really thought they were trying to re-establish the original church of Jesus. I have certainly heard the LDS church make this argument too. I think that many were very sincere in this line of thinking.

 

[garysibio]

Umm… huh? What does the discussion & vote at Trent have to do with the fact that Nicaea didn’t address the canon of Scripture?

Nothing, actually. I misread the post and thought it said Trent had nothing to do with setting the canon. My bad

 

[garysibio]

I’m quite certain Martin Luther rejected Hebrews.

And Revelation. Can you imagine televangelists he had succeeded?

 

[garysibio]

Well I guess since Protestants are united on everything the Bible says, and what it all means
That they would also be united in their consistency of accepting the same canon of scripture.

#proofisinthepudding

Catholics have their disagreements also.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Catholics have their disagreements also.

yeah…not quite the same way though…If we disagree on what salvation is we do not just go start new churches each reflecting our own viewpoint.

 

[adf417]

He could. Anyone could; but no one really does.

Sure there is dronald and you call them non-Christians. Look at what the JWs have done to “the bible”. There is no difference in what they have done to the scriptures and rejecting a whole book.

Peace!!!

 

[dronald]

yeah…not quite the same way though…If we disagree on what salvation is we do not just go start new churches each reflecting our own viewpoint.

No. They just continue calling themselves ‘Catholic’ while disagreeing with many core teachings. Do I have to bring up the homosexual marriage chart again?

And Revelation. Can you imagine televangelists he had succeeded?

Hah! That’s so great.

Sure there is dronald and you call them non-Christians. Look at what the JWs have done to “the bible”. There is no difference in what they have done to the scriptures and rejecting a whole book.

Peace!!!

They change words in order to fit doctrines that they like.

There’s a reason none of us count them as Christians; likewise Mormons.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. They just continue calling themselves ‘Catholic’ while disagreeing with many core teachings. Do I have to bring up the homosexual marriage chart again?

Hah! That’s so great.

They change words in order to fit doctrines that they like.

There’s a reason none of us count them as Christians; likewise Mormons.

If you prayerfully discern that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God, what’s wrong with that?

Polycarp’s mentioned in the Bible, his letters are historically reliable. Why not those?

 

[simspt]

I think my original post re the Catholic Church as the source of the Bible was intended to address your question of why there is a lack of counter arguments.

Part of the problem is Catholics themselves confusing the infallible canon of scripture (which comes from the Church guided by the Holy Spirit) with the Sacred Texts themselves (75% of which was written by non-Catholics). This results in triumphalist statements like “My Church wrote your Bible”. I wouldn’t even refute that if I was Evangelical.

My Evangelical friends who care enough about the Catholic Church to refute its beliefs think that the Church was invented by Constantine in 325AD. They believe that whomever determined the canon of Scripture was certainly not the invented-by-man Catholic Church. This is my experience among my friends.

Jon S had some great points two posts up. I live in the heart of the Evangelical deep South. Evangelicals don’t even consider themselves to be Protestant down here. Evangelicals care as little about Martin Luther and John Calvin as they do about the Catholic Church and what some dead guys did 1700 years ago is simply not relevant to their faith today. That is their view. As Jon said, they just don’t talk about it. Statements like “We wrote your Bible” only make them roll their eyes and walk away shaking their head.

-Tim-

The Scriptures are the written medium of God’s revelation. Christ founded a Church and the Gospel was first preached then eventually written and much later those written texts canonized. All the authors of the NT writings were part of the same Church Christ founded. The NT writings are basically the written Tradition of the Catholic Church. Why is it factually incorrect to state St Paul, the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels and the other anonymous NT authors/redactors are not part of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus the Jew who lived in the first third of the fist century in Palestine. This seems to be basic history 101 regardless of whether or not you believe in Christ. You and Jon S are right, most Evangelicals especially of the non-denominational (I’m sure Jon S is very familiar being on OC) background don’t care about the human aspects of Scripture or its canonization and completely focus on the divine/inspired source. Acknowledging the authority of the canonizing Catholic Church is usually in my experience limited arbitrarily to the canon and not to any doctrines of that same Church during that same period of time by Evangelicals.

 

[DavidFilmer]

David-

How does it compare with:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hDvs8bTJL.jpg

I haven’t read this book, but from the blurb and reviews on Amazon, it seems to focus on why the Catholic and protestant Old Testaments are not the same.

And the reason for this is really quite simple. When the early Christians compiled the Canon of Scripture, they simply adopted whatever OT Canon was in use by the Synagogue down the street. There was (and still is) no “official” Jewish Canon, and there were regional differences even in Apostolic times, which is why the Catholic OT differs slightly from some Eastern OTs - everybody used whatever was in use by the Synagogue down the street. While many protestants initially accepted the same OT as the Catholic Church, they gradually took the same approach that the Catholic Church took fifteen centuries earlier, accepting whatever was in use by Synagogue down the street. But, by the Sixteenth Century, the OT books which were originally written in Greek had been gradually excluded from most Jewish texts (such as the very influential (and almost “official”) Masoretic Text (compiled between the Seventh and Tenth Century).

Of course, Catholics had no problem with the OT Canon used in the time of Jesus, including the portions written in Greek. After all, almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek (Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, but none of this oritinal text survives).

Dr. Bruce’s book focuses on the canon of the New Testament, practically ignoring the Old testament, so I believe the books are VERY different.

 

[adf417]

They change words in order to fit doctrines that they like.

There’s a reason none of us count them as Christians; likewise Mormons.

And they consider themselves the only true Christians, you make my point for me.

Peace!!!