Canon of Scripture

[Ginger2]

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

One reason Jews rejected the OT deuterocanonical books is because they were being used to verily sucessfully convert Jews to Christianity. The Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Are you basing your belief on a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Jesus and the Apostles reference these books over and over again. They make reference to the deuterocanonical books or directly quote them at least 85 times in the new testament. Go here if you want proof scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I’m afraid that the criteria you use to determine if books are inspired is faulty.

Peace,

Ryan

I don’t believe that is accurate.

Also, how do you know they were quoting from one of these Apocryphal books? Just because a book mentions a specific real-life event does not mean the book is inspired.

I sometimes talk about a well-know event and people respond by talking about what they saw in a movie based on that same event. Does it mean the movie is 100% factual just because it’s based on a real event?

Many, if not all the Apocrypha have factual errors.

 

[Ginger2]

So the more likely explanation is that the totality of Christianity was mistaken for 75% of Christian history (AD 33-1500), and that 75% of Christians (1.5 billion Catholics and Orthodox) continue to have faulty Bibles? Even if you buy into personal interpretation, then most people are interpreting it as part of the Bible!

“…For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

 

[Ginger2]

True, all of the books of the final canon are inspired and have equal status, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how do you actually determine whether a particular book of scripture is inspired? You claim that the true books of the canon illustrate their own inspiration, but there is ample proof that Christians of the first three centuries didn’t agree on the canon, so clearly even they had problems determining whether it was inspired.

If you are indeed correct, what possible purpose did the Councils of Carthage and Hippo then serve?

Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The Canon was officially established at the Council of Trent in the 16th century and even then there was not a consensus.

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that the canon was set in 1546 to fight Luther’s reformation. The timing is pragmatic.

 

[Ginger2]

One reason Jews rejected the OT deuterocanonical books is because they were being used to verily sucessfully convert Jews to Christianity.

If that were true they would have needed to remove more books. Others Scriptures such as:

Psa 22:1, which directly corralates with Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus and the Apostles reference these books over and over again.

Can you give a few examples of the many times Jesus quoted from the Apocrypha?

 

[Deconi]

Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The Canon was officially established at the Council of Trent in the 16th century and even then there was not a consensus.

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that the canon was set in 1546 to fight Luther’s reformation. The timing is pragmatic.

Really??!! Was there a Reformer at Cathage or Hippo?

How can you make these speculations, Ginger, as though they’re facts! The Canon of Scriptures was FOR THE WHOLE church since there was only ONE Church at the time!

The Canon was settled, bound and professed as Scriptures long long long before Trent and Luther!

Are you serious?

 

[Ginger2]

Really??!!

The Canon was settled, bound and professed as Scriptures long long long before Trent and Luther!

Then why were there still disagreements as to which Scriptures were inspired? If the canon had dogmatically been settled, wouldn’t anyone denying the inspiriation of one or more of these apocrypha have been accused of heresy?

It was advantageous for the cjurch to make an official declaration as to canon at the time of the reformation - regardless of whether or not that was the reason for doing so.

 

[Steadfast]

This is a difficult question.

The common Protestant position that the Bible is self-authenticating in the sense that which books are canonical and which are not can be told from the texts themselves is untenable.

Another idea is that the compilation of the canon of Scripture was so superintended by God that those books He wanted in it eventually but inevitably got into it.

This idea is fine until the agency of the church is removed from the equation, then it becomes pious opinion and speculation.

I think the best view is that the church has a custodial superintendency over the Bible and that her agency was instrumental in the compilation and the eventual codification of the canon as we have it.

The fact that, in the west we have two canons and that neither of these canons are innovations but both have much historical attestation leads me to conclude that while the church may have this “custodial superintendency” of the Word of God, it is not exhaustively inerrant or infallible when it comes to the exercise of this superintendency over the issue of which books belong in it…

 

[Deconi]

Then why were there still disagreements as to which Scriptures were inspired? If the canon had dogmatically been settled, wouldn’t anyone denying the inspiriation of one or more of these apocrypha have been accused of heresy?

It was advantageous for the cjurch to make an official declaration as to canon at the time of the reformation - regardless of whether or not that was the reason for doing so.

You’ll see by “Steadfast’s” post below why discussions continue, Ginger!

The question and answer is actually simple. The Canon has been decided and completed. Contrary top Steadfast’s views, there is only one Canon Not two!

The Reformed version is a splinter of the original!!
The fact that Reformers now argue about the Canon of Scriptures does not mean there is argument, per se. What The Holy Spirit has decided, The Holy Spirit has decided!

I mean seriously! How can anyone remove books from Scriptures and then argue the authenticity of the new version, and call into question its original form?

The Reformers are doing this with The Church! First they discover that they departed from Her, and then call Her to account as though Her legitimacy was in tatters!!

I mean, SERIOUSLY!!! Talk about ignorance!

 

[Steadfast]

You’ll see by “Steadfast’s” post below why discussions continue, Ginger!

The question and answer is actually simple. The Canon has been decided and completed. Contrary top Steadfast’s views, there is only one Canon Not two!

The Reformed version is a splinter of the original!!
The fact that Reformers now argue about the Canon of Scriptures does not mean there is argument, per se. What The Holy Spirit has decided, The Holy Spirit has decided!

I mean seriously! How can anyone remove books from Scriptures and then argue the authenticity of the new version, and call into question its original form?

The Reformers are doing this with The Church! First they discover that they departed from Her, and then call Her to account as though Her legitimacy was in tatters!!

I mean, SERIOUSLY!!! Talk about ignorance!

This board desperately needs a dead horses forum where the same old tired debates can go to either sputter on or die and where we can send new comers to get up to speed.

ETA: I have discovered that in most posts, the number of exclamation points used is usually in direct inverse proportion to the actual amount of substance in it.

For example, a series of vehemently maintained and presented assertions does not constitute an argument. At best the most it can be is contradiction.

 

[Ginger2]

This is a difficult question.

The common Protestant position that the Bible is self-authenticating in the sense that which books are canonical and which are not can be told from the texts themselves is untenable.

Another idea is that the compilation of the canon of Scripture was so superintended by God that those books He wanted in it eventually but inevitably got into it.

This idea is fine until the agency of the church is removed from the equation, then it becomes pious opinion and speculation.

I think the best view is that the church has a custodial superintendency over the Bible and that her agency was instrumental in the compilation and the eventual codification of the canon as we have it.

The fact that, in the west we have two canons and that neither of these canons are innovations but both have much historical attestation leads me to conclude that while the church may have this “custodial superintendency” of the Word of God, it is not exhaustively inerrant or infallible when it comes to the exercise of this superintendency over the issue of which books belong in it…

A couple of things come to mind…

The current Catholic canon is not identical to the list out of Hippo and Carthage which are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. Whereas, the Council of Trent proclaimed 1 & 2 from the Jewish canon. (There are probably other descrepensies, but I am not well verse in this area)

It is not clear (to me, anyway) that God specifically wanted all inspired writings to be place in one collection. Attempts to do so arose in an effort to prevent false writings from being circulated as inspired. In the case of Trent, I believe it happened as a result of supporting certain doctrines against the reformation.

But it is not so important to me that these books are included in the Bible. What is more important is that they contain serious errors and should be read keeping in mind their imperfections.

 

[Ginger2]

This board desperately needs a dead horses forum where the same old tired debates can go to either sputter on or die and where we can send new comers to get up to speed.

If you would rather not participate in threads such as this, why are you here?

Please don’t waste people’s time by having to sift thru your complaints in an effort not to miss posts they are responding to.

At this time, anyone who feels short changed with this thread, please free to leave and find one that interests you. I will not be offended. I would hope that those who are here can have a pleasant experience talking about God and spiritual matters.

Goodbye and good luck finding a better discussion, wherever you go.

 

[Steadfast]

If you would rather not participate in threads such as this, why are you here?

Please don’t waste people’s time by having to sift thru your complaints in an effort not to miss posts they are responding to.

At this time, anyone who feels short changed with this thread, please free to leave and find one that interests you. I will not be offended. I would hope that those who are here can have a pleasant experience talking about God and spiritual matters.

Goodbye and good luck finding a better discussion, wherever you go.

Ginger,

For the most part, I am on your side in this discussion. My remarks were in reference to Deconi’s comments.

His (or her) lack of information on the history of the canon in the west was jarring not least because it contained significant errors of assumption. It’s something we’ve discussed on this board ad nauseam.

My point was that it would be nice if there were a place for people like him to go to get up to speed before venturing into full bloviation mode.

 

[Steadfast]

A couple of things come to mind…

The current Catholic canon is not identical to the list out of Hippo and Carthage which are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. Whereas, the Council of Trent proclaimed 1 & 2 from the Jewish canon. (There are probably other descrepensies, but I am not well verse in this area)

It is not clear (to me, anyway) that God specifically wanted all inspired writings to be place in one collection. Attempts to do so arose in an effort to prevent false writings from being circulated as inspired. In the case of Trent, I believe it happened as a result of supporting certain doctrines against the reformation.

But it is not so important to me that these books are included in the Bible. What is more important is that they contain serious errors and should be read keeping in mind their imperfections.

I agree. The books of the Deuterocanon/OT Apocrypha are of significant historical and pious interest but should not be read as inspired.

It’s true that the RCC didn’t finally codify their OT canon until Trent and that up until that time there was a significant minority of Catholic scholarship which doubted the canonicity of certain texts in the majority list.

But saying that they approved and included these books at Trent as one in the eye to the Reformers is about as plausible as saying that the Reformers left them out because they taught controverted Roman Catholic doctrines.

It may be true but it can’t really be substantiated and it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[cazayoux]

As for the OT the Apocryphal books do not have the same qualities as the other books. I don’t believe any of them even claim divine inspiration. And I know that 2 Macc denies inspiration. Many of these books **contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. **

Therefore they can’t be inspired.

The lack of a claim of inspiration cannot be a test since many books that we agree are inspired also do not make this specific claim.

2 Macc 15:37-39

Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my own story to an end here too.
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.

This shows humility of the writer and does not in any way deny that the writing was inspired.
Again, if only claim to inspiriation is required to be considered part of the canon, we’d have to remove many other books that we agree are canonical.

Through a retreat I was a part of called Christ Renews His Parish, I went through an exercise to write out my faith history. I realized during this exercise when God was working in my life, even though I didn’t realize it at the time.

Did all writers of inspired works know *while they were writing *that what they were writing was inspired?

michel

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

For the most part, I am on your side in this discussion. My remarks were in reference to Deconi’s comments.

His (or her) lack of information on the history of the canon in the west was jarring not least because it contained significant errors of assumption. It’s something we’ve discussed on this board ad nauseam.

My point was that it would be nice if there were a place for people like him to go to get up to speed before venturing into full bloviation mode.

If that is what you meant, then I apologize. But it doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or with Catholics. I am hoping to avoid endless posts that complain.

Sorry I took your post wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

The lack of a claim of inspiration cannot be a test since many books that we agree are inspired also do not make this specific claim.

2 Macc 15:37-39
This shows humility of the writer and does not in any way deny that the writing was inspired.
Again, if only claim to inspiriation is required to be considered part of the canon, we’d have to remove many other books that we agree are canonical.

Please see post #1 I clarified that the author’s claim to inspiration is not alone sufficient evidence.

Through a retreat I was a part of called Christ Renews His Parish, I went through an exercise to write out my faith history. I realized during this exercise when God was working in my life, even though I didn’t realize it at the time.

Did all writers of inspired works know *while they were writing *that what they were writing was inspired?

michel

When God uses me, I usually realize it after that fact. However, these authors did know it. In the OT they specifically said they were speaking the word of God. They were often persecuted for it and only became recognized as prophets when theirs warnings came true.

The Apostles made claims of divine inspiration also. They quoted Jesus “My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.” (John 7:16). Peter affirm Pauls’ writing were Scripture (2 Peter 3:16)

Paul makes this claim himself Gal 1:11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

See also:
1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

 

[Ginger2]

But saying that they approved and included these books at Trent as one in the eye to the Reformers is about as plausible as saying that the Reformers left them out because they taught controverted Roman Catholic doctrines.

I don’t state that as a fact. It is just my opinion that it played a role as the timing is suspicious.

Opinion based primarily because the church historically met to decide or solidify doctrine when they felt heresy is springing up. And we all know that Catholics believe Luther was a heretic.

 

[ralphinal]

House of Cards!

Inspired works left out = Message intended for us by the Holy Spirit not complete = the Bible does not contain all public revelation

Uninspired works put in = Message intended for us by Holy Spirit altered or diluted by men = Bible not valid as public revelation

We must accept that the Cannon is accurate and correct or else why should we follow the Bible at all. If you say becase of something in the Bible, how do we know that it is from an inspired book?

 

[Ginger2]

House of Cards!

Inspired works left out = Message intended for us by the Holy Spirit not complete = the Bible does not contain all public revelation

Uninspired works put in = Message intended for us by Holy Spirit altered or diluted by men = Bible not valid as public revelation

We must accept that the Cannon is accurate and correct or else why should we follow the Bible at all. If you say becase of something in the Bible, how do we know that it is from an inspired book?

The Bible does not contain all public revelation - but if ten more men received revelation in the OT to confirm the Christ would their specific revelations really** need** to be added to validate what we already have? I think God saw to it that we have enough sacred writings so that there is no excuse for unbelief.

But if these ten extra men had nothing more to add but for one to say he had a dream, and another a vision, and still another heard a voice, but there was nothing else - of what profit would it be if they each wrote about that contained nothing of spiritual value except the one instance?

Should we consider their entire manuscripts valid simply because they claim one thing that agrees with verified prophets testimonies?

Lokk at what the JW’s have done to Scriptures. Yet, anyone who depends on God will eventually see thru the deception.

So I have no big problem with the extra books being in the Bible. But the church should not depend on them to declare doctrines.

 

[Ginger2]

Aside from, “the church said so” do Catholics feel there is any criteria Scriptures must meet to be considered inspired?