Canon of the Bible

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the sola scriptura thread, I asked a Protestant if he’d be interested in sharing his view of the canon of the Bible being defined, if I created a thread with that topic. That’s why I am starting this thread, to give him a chance to present his view, as well as his sources for discussion.

Catholics believe it was written by Catholics (the Apsotles) and the canon of the Bible was defined by Catholics. It seems even Martin Luther accepted this:

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

It is estimated that the books of the New Testament were written between 60AD and later, with the book of Revelations being written around 100AD. These books consisted of letters and epistles, sent to individual Churches scattered all across Asia. There were many other writings as well, some of which were considered forgeries and others simply weren’t considered God inspired. The Church had to gather all these writings together and determine what belonged, as sacred scriptures, and what didn’t, as the Apostles themselves didn’t do it and the Bible didn’t include a canon within itself. (This means an authority outside the “sole authority”, as some refer to the Bible, had to define the canon of the Bible.)

Below is a timeline of the canon of the Bible, according to the Catholic perspective.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.**

According to the timeline provided above, it shows the faith and the Church not only existed for several hundred years, it flourished without a complete Bible as we know it today. The Church gave us the Bible, it wasn’t the other way around.

I have private messaged our Protestant brother with a link to this thread for his participation.

 

[Nita]

In the sola scriptura thread, I asked a Protestant if he’d be interested in sharing his view of the **canon of the Bible **being defined, if I created a thread with that topic. That’s why I am starting this thread, to give him a chance to present his view, as well as his sources for discussion.

Catholics believe it was written by Catholics (the** Apsotles**)…

A couple points that should perhaps be restated.

1. Clarification needed that"it" (in second paragraph) does not refer to entire “canon of the Bible”, Catholics did not write the OT – only the NT portion.
2. Not all of the NT books were authored by (12) Apostles. (eg. Mark, Luke, Paul)

Sorry to be such a stickler about accuracy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A couple points that should perhaps be restated.

1. Clarification needed that"it" (in second paragraph) does not refer to entire “canon of the Bible”, Catholics did not write the OT – only the NT portion.
2. Not all of the NT books were authored by (12) Apostles. (eg. Mark, Luke, Paul)

Sorry to be such a stickler about accuracy.

No problem Nita, thanks for your corrections! I’ve got several things going at once and didn’t pay as much attention to what I was saying as I should have.

 

[rcjones]

Although I can’t speak for your friend or for Protestants, this is an important topic to me because it addresses very directly the issue of authority.

I believe that the power to bind and to loose was the authority to set practice in the church instead of the rabbis, which implied that their teachings should probably be recorded the same way that rabbinic teaching was recorded.

I believe that the councils collected the writing that contained the teachings of the apostles. Luke specifically claims to be collecting a history, Mark probably contains the gospel according to Peter, and Paul was an apostle of an untimely birth and his writings are called scripture by Peter.

So I see that the authority remained with the apostles, and that the canon is a collection of their teaching.

I acknowledge that the church maintained the teaching of the apostles for a time without the canon. However, I do not see this as a warrant to elevate tradition above scripture. Tradition was helpful in determining which writing contained the authority of the apostolic teaching.

Even by acknowledging tradition’s role in this small part, it would not permit the adding of tradition as has been done subsequently in things such as the assumption of Mary, the Liturgy, icons, etc. It merely confuses the discussion to speak of ‘tradition’ in these two roles as tough they were one: tradition as maintainer, tradition as authority for invention.

So I believe that it is consistent to say that the church collected the authoritative teachings of the apostles as they ‘bound’ and ‘loosed’ practices within the church, and at the same time say that the scriptures alone have authoritative teaching. The church was witness to the teachings of the apostles, and thereby was qualified to testify to the authority of the manuscripts.

It is better to say that the church tradition was a witness to apostolic authority rather than to say that tradition trumps apostolic authority.

This is my understanding.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me explain what the definition of the canon of the Bible is. It was a decision on what books, letters and epistles, were to be included in the Bible. We’re specifically discussing the New Testament.

As you say, this discussion is partly about authority and I see it as a demonstration that there was another authority besides the “sole authority” some claim the Bible to be. To me, using an outside source to determine what books, letters and epistles, would be included in the New Testament, is another authority, which was the Church. We all know that the Bible doesn’t include us with a list of what books, letters and epistles, are to be included within itself, and there are no written instructions for those who took this task on, long after all the Apostles had passed away. It really doesn’t have anything to do with traditions. If it does, we have to ask why it’s acceptable to use oral tradition in the compiling of the Bible, but not other teachings from the Apostles?

Even though Peter insinuated that Paul’s writings could have been considered “scriptures”, no Apostles, or authors of the New Testament provided us a list of which writings were to be included in the inspired word of God, we know to be the Bible.

There were many other writings that had to be considered by the men of the Church, besides the ones we have in the New Testament today. There were the writings known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included writings known as the New Testament Apocrypha and lost books of the Bible. They even recovered what is identified as the Gospel of Judas, in a Coptic text. That’s only the ones we know of today, how many more could there have been when the Church took on this task? The men of the Church had writings to reject, as well as to accept, to make up the list of books in the New Testament we have today.

New Testament Apocrypha

1. 
   *]Dead Sea Scrolls
   *]Community Rule
   *]The ‘Zadokite’ Document
   *]Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
   *]Epistle of the Apostles
   *]Report of Pilate the Procurator
   *]History of Joseph the Carpenter
   *]Apocryphon of James (Another version)
   *]The Letter of Peter to Philip
   *]Book of John the Evangelist
   *]Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
   *]Avenging of the Saviour
   *]The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
   *]The Sentances of Sextus
   *]Book of Thomas the Contender

1. 
   

   Lost Books of the Bible

   1. 
      *]The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
      *]The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
      *]The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
      *]The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit, Greek (A), Greek (B), Latin
      *]Infancy Compilation (all)
      *]The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
      *]THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
      *]The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
      *]Letters of HEROD and PILATE
      *]The APOSTLES’ CREED
      *]THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
      *]The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
      *]The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
      *]The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
      *]The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
      *]The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
      *]The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
      *]HERMAS
      *]The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
      *]The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
      *]LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
      *]THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
      *]THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
      *]The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
      *]The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
      *]The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
      *]TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
      *]TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
      *]TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
      *]TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
      *]The Report of Pilate to Caesar
      *]Gospel of Bartholomew
      *]Gospel of Thomas
      *]Gospel of Phillip
      *]Secret Gospel of Mark
      *]Book of Marcion
      *]Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
      *]The Letter of Aristeas
      *]The Didache

   1. 
      Now, what I’m looking for is the Protestant timeline, and who defined the canon of the Bible, the New Testament, unless they agree it was the timeline presented in my first post, and it was men of the Catholic Church that defined them.
      
      The point is, we believe the Catholic Church is responsible for the canon as we know it today, not only the canon, but preserving the Bible throughout the centuries so we have it today. As I shared in my first post, Martin Luther certainly agreed it was from, and to the credit, of the Catholic Church.
      
      I’m trying to find out when that belief changed and what historical evidence supports that change, from the Protestants that reject the Catholic view.

 

[golfjack]

PS, I hope we are not comparing apples and oranges here. I do agree that in the second century, early church fathers protected and made the decision that the NT canon should include only the apostolic writings.

The Apostles had been eye-witnesses to the ministry of Christ. They had received His teaching firsthand and could speak with authority. Paul urged Timothy to pass his teachings on to others. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also ( 2 Tim. 2:3).

Concerning the matter of the inspiration of the Scripture, Christ made two especially significant remarks. He emphasized that men should believe all that the prophets have spoken ( Luke 24:25), the Old Terstament… Secondly in His final instructions to the apostles, Christ authorized them to commit to others the same truths. He had given them, the NT. ( Matt. 28:20).

How could the disciples fulfill this command on down to the end of the age, long after they were gone? Only by means of their inspired writings which in the providence of God have been preserved in the NT to this day.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS, I hope we are not comparing apples and oranges here. I do agree that in the second century, early church fathers protected and made the decision that the NT canon should include only the apostolic writings.

Actually, if you’re agreeing with the timeline I provided, it wasn’t until 360AD that a “similar” list, to today’s list, of New Testament books were listed by the Council of Laodicea. It was a few years later that Pope Damasus, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon. By the way, is there any doubt those early Church fathers, in the mid 300s were Catholic?

Also, you realize that Mark and Luke were not Apostles, right?

The Apostles had been eye-witnesses to the ministry of Christ. They had received His teaching firsthand and could speak with authority. Paul urged Timothy to pass his teachings on to others. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also ( 2 Tim. 2:3).

I’m not trying to change the subject, but you seem to have rejected any authority other than the Bible, in the sola scriptura discussion. Now, it seems you’re recognizing the oral tradition, and Apostolic authority. I know the Apostles were eye-witnesses, with the exception of Paul. Timothy and those faithful fit men to teach others, were of the Apostolic succession, and of course were dead by 360AD. This is evident by the fact that Paul wrote those letters to Timothy before 70AD, most estimates place them around 60AD.

**2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also. **

Notice Paul was more specific in his instructions to Titus.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Concerning the matter of the inspiration of the Scripture, Christ made two especially significant remarks. He emphasized that men should believe all that the prophets have spoken ( Luke 24:25), the Old Terstament… Secondly in His final instructions to the apostles, Christ authorized them to commit to others the same truths. He had given them, the NT. ( Matt. 28:20).

You keep bringing up the “inspiration” of scriptures and I’ve repeatedly responded to this by saying, Catholics believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

How could the disciples fulfill this command on down to the end of the age, long after they were gone? Only by means of their inspired writings which in the providence of God have been preserved in the NT to this day.

Now is where I need to ask you, how the Apostles determined which books belonged in the New Testament, some 260 years after the final Apostle died? The Apostles didn’t write a list of those books anywhere?

It also brings another question, I and others,have asked you. Who was Christ saying He would be with until the consummation of the world, knowing the consummation of the world wouldn’t take place until long after the Apostles were gone? It was only the Apostles, He chose for His Church, that were present when He said this.

If God inspired His word to be written, it had to be that God protected and inspired the holy men of the Church, some 260 years later, with His Holy Spirit. If God could protect His word 260 years after the death of the final Apostle, why couldn’t God protect that same Church throughout time, just as He preserves His word? According to Martin Luther, the Catholic Church preserved the Bible until the 1500s, or else the Protestants wouldn’t have had the New Testament.

 

[golfjack]

On a side note, I have observed that you others like to take credit for what God did. For example, You make a big deal about early Church fathers. I believe all of the Bible was prreserved by God supernaturally, and give my God credit.

Let’s talk about the preservation of the Bible. We do know that of course that there was no printing at that time. Some of the earliest writings may have been inscribed on clay tablets such as those which have been found by archaeologists in the land of Babylon. Others were written on leather parchment . Such manuscripts were in the forms of scrolls. No scroll was large enough to contain more than one book; consequently the OT was not bound together in one volume

We have only a handful of manuscripts of the ancient works of Greek literature. In some cases we have only a single manuscript.

But we have thousands of OT and NT manuscripts. This enables us to determine their exact original text.Variations between these ancient manuscripts are very minor and insignificant, and there is every evidence that the greatest care was exercised in copying them. It is obvious that God was taking care of His Holy Scripture.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On a side note, I have observed that you others like to take credit for what God did. For example, You make a big deal about early Church fathers. I believe all of the Bible was prreserved by God supernaturally, and give my God credit.

Why do you twist what I said? Did you somehow misunderstand? Here is one sentence from my last post, that summarizes the whole point quite well.

If God inspired His word to be written, it had to be that God protected and inspired the holy men of the Church, some 260 years later, with His Holy Spirit.

Who does it appear I am giving full credit too?

YES, God brought all the books together and preserved His word with His Holy Spirit! What earthly tools did He use? The Church, that Christ built, and the men of the Church, that Christ chose, and those through Apostolic succession, with the authority Christ passed to the Apostles!

Do you dislike Catholics so much, that there is no way you can bring yourself to think that God protected and guided them with His Holy Spirit, to care for word through the years?

Let’s talk about the preservation of the Bible. We do know that of course that there was no printing at that time. Some of the earliest writings may have been inscribed on clay tablets such as those which have been found by archaeologists in the land of Babylon. Others were written on leather parchment . Such manuscripts were in the forms of scrolls. No scroll was large enough to contain more than one book; consequently the OT was not bound together in one volume

We have only a handful of manuscripts of the ancient works of Greek literature. In some cases we have only a single manuscript.

But we have thousands of OT and NT manuscripts. This enables us to determine their exact original text.Variations between these ancient manuscripts are very minor and insignificant, and there is every evidence that the greatest care was exercised in copying them. It is obvious that God was taking care of His Holy Scripture.

   Peace,    Golfjack

Again, YES, God was taking care of His Holy Scripture and He used the Church that Christ built, and the men Christ chose and gave authority to! That my friend was the Catholic Church. It was visible and has existed ever since, and like His word it was also a gift from Him.

 

[golfjack]

PS, Your definition of Church and my definition of Church are different and this is where the problem is. The early church fathers made no claim to inspiration but drew their proof from the Apostles.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS, Your definition of Church and my definition of Church are different and this is where the problem is. The early church fathers made no claim to inspiration but drew their proof from the Apostles.

       Peace,   Golfjack

We agree the early Church fathers drew their proof from the Apostles. Though with the timelines documented, it was Apostolic succession and history shows us, it was not an “invisible Church”. That is a claim that arose out of the reformation and later.

 

[golfjack]

I believe the Pope is called the vicar of Christ. We are all representitives of Christ. Now, to the point, You say there is to be no private interptretation of the Word. Well, what is the Mag interpretation? Is it not private? Is this group inspired by God, If so, prove it.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe the Pope is called the vicar of Christ. We are all representitives of Christ. Now, to the point, You say there is to be no private interptretation of the Word. Well, what is the Mag interpretation? Is it not private? Is this group inspired by God, If so, prove it.

  Peace,    Golfjack

We’ve been through it on this very thread. It’s under the authority of Apostolic succession and the promises of Christ to be with us until the consummation of the world. Christ made that promise to those He chose to be the authority of His Church, knowing they would all eventually die a fleshly death before the consummation. It is our belief, He was speaking to His Church authority.

Another time that Christ was speaking to His Apostles is in the passage below.

**Joh 16:7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin and of justice and of judgment.
Joh 16:9 Of sin: because they believed not in me.
Joh 16:10 And of justice: because I go to the Father: and you shall see me no longer.
Joh 16:11 And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged.
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. **

Now, let’s clear this up. The Pope does not interpret scriptures alone. He receives council from Church doctors, theologians and other holy men of the Church. It is also weighed against what the Church has passed down through the Apostolic succession. It’s not like one person reads scriptures and receives a private interpretation. As I said earlier, just as God has power to inspire His word be written, God has power to protect His truth, through the Church He established and granted authority too. That has been promised, in scriptures, many times.

**Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Jn 2:27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you: but as his unction teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

Act 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.**

Let me use an analogy I use to try and convey the process here. The founding fathers of this country wrote the constitution. They did not send it to every citizen and say, here interpret this for yourself. That would be utter chaos! They established a legislative body to interpret that document for us, so we would be of the same mind and judgement. Would God have done less than the men that founded this country? I don’t think so.

 

[guanophore]

Although I can’t speak for your friend or for Protestants, this is an important topic to me because it addresses very directly the issue of authority.

I believe that the power to bind and to loose was the authority to set practice in the church instead of the rabbis, which implied that their teachings should probably be recorded the same way that rabbinic teaching was recorded.

I believe that the councils collected the writing that contained the teachings of the apostles. Luke specifically claims to be collecting a history, Mark probably contains the gospel according to Peter, and Paul was an apostle of an untimely birth and his writings are called scripture by Peter.

So I see that the authority remained with the apostles, and that the canon is a collection of their teaching.

I acknowledge that the church maintained the teaching of the apostles for a time without the canon. However, I do not see this as a warrant to elevate tradition above scripture. Tradition was helpful in determining which writing contained the authority of the apostolic teaching.

Even by acknowledging tradition’s role in this small part, it would not permit the adding of tradition as has been done subsequently in things such as the assumption of Mary, the Liturgy, icons, etc. It merely confuses the discussion to speak of ‘tradition’ in these two roles as tough they were one: tradition as maintainer, tradition as authority for invention.

So I believe that it is consistent to say that the church collected the authoritative teachings of the apostles as they ‘bound’ and ‘loosed’ practices within the church, and at the same time say that the scriptures alone have authoritative teaching. The church was witness to the teachings of the apostles, and thereby was qualified to testify to the authority of the manuscripts.

It is better to say that the church tradition was a witness to apostolic authority rather than to say that tradition trumps apostolic authority.

This is my understanding.

You are right, it really does boil down to authority. However, it would not be correct to say that tradition trumps aposotlic authority". Sacred Tradition IS Apostolic Authority. It embodies all the Apostles did and taught, and the authority passed on to them by Christ that they gave to their successors. I agree, Church tradition does witness, both to Apostolic Authority and to Sacred Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I hope we are not comparing apples and oranges here. I do agree that in the second century, early church fathers protected and made the decision that the NT canon should include only the apostolic writings.

In that case you believe something that never actually happened.

The Apostles had been eye-witnesses to the ministry of Christ. They had received His teaching firsthand and could speak with authority. Paul urged Timothy to pass his teachings on to others. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also ( 2 Tim. 2:3).

This is what is known as “apostolic succession”.

Concerning the matter of the inspiration of the Scripture, Christ made two especially significant remarks. He emphasized that men should believe all that the prophets have spoken ( Luke 24:25), the Old Terstament…

Indeed, Christ made many significant remarks about Scripture. However, the error in this statement is the reference to the OT. There were several collections at the time that were in dispute.

in His final instructions to the apostles, Christ authorized them to commit to others the same truths. He had given them, the NT. ( Matt. 28:20).

How could the disciples fulfill this command on down to the end of the age, long after they were gone?\ quote]

Indeed, this is what we call the “apostolic succession”.

2 Tim 2:2
2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
golfjack;5162485:

Only by means of their inspired writings which in the providence of God have been preserved in the NT to this day.

This is what you have been taught to believe, so that you are free to reject the authority appointed by Christ. However, such a formulation requires that those Apostles who did not write did not really preach the Word of God, or that God was not able to preserve what they taught, since it was not written.

It denies that the Word of God is present and at work in the Church, as much as scripture.

1 Thess 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.