B
boxerpaws
Guest
They make the assertion-i’d ask them to prove it. IMHO the burden of proof is with them. 
- Status
O
OfTheCross
Guest
I didn’t specifically ask about the New Testament Canon, I asked about the 66 book Canon you hold. I am asking when the 66 book Canon was finalized, by whom, why did they have the authority to do so, and when did this 66 book Canon first come into widespread use. Those questions were not answered. All you told me is that the NT essentially came to be by some mysterious consensus around the fourth century.
The fact the the Catholic Canon differs from the 66 book Canon is obviously very important. That the Latin Vulgate had historical consensus among Christians for a millenium prior to the arrival of the 66 book Canon demands some answers. Answers that can’t give any kind of date, any group of men, any claim of authority, or any historic continuity and just promote a nuanced form of 'it just happened and I accept it" may be good enough for some but seems completely illogical to me. The fact remains that men (obviously guided be the Holy Spirit) had to set the limits what in fact was the written Revelation of God and what wasn’t.
Certainly these men can and should use certain inclusion/exclusion criteria, but who then has the authority to determine what inclusion/exclusion criteria should be used to limit the Canon? It all becomes so subjective and arbitrary if there is no visible Church and no visible binding authority.
I have to admit, that many Reformed are clamoring to claim the title Catholic makes me crack a very wry smile.
Peter John
O
OfTheCross
Guest
I didn’t specifically ask about the New Testament Canon, I asked about the 66 book Canon you hold. I am asking when the 66 book Canon was finalized, by whom, why did they have the authority to do so, and when did this 66 book Canon first come into widespread use. Those questions were not answered. All you told me is that the NT essentially came to be by some mysterious consensus around the fourth century.
The fact the the Catholic Canon differs from the 66 book Canon is obviously very important. That either one group of Christians lacks seven inspired books, or the other includes seven uninspired books are the only two options. The burden of proof is upon those that have vetoed the historical Canon (which was in widespread use for a thousand years) who at the same time are unable to give any dates when such a decision was made to restrict the Canon to 66 books, any group of men that made this decision, and no claim of authority that they had any business making such a decision. That is a problem of massive proportions, and I still don’t have any answers.
That the Latin Vulgate had historical consensus among Christians for a millenium prior to the arrival of the 66 book Canon demands some answers. Answers that can’t give any kind of date, any group of men, any claim of authority, or any historic continuity and just promote a nuanced form of “it just happened and I accept it” may be good enough for some but seems completely illogical to me. The fact remains that men (obviously guided be the Holy Spirit) had to set the limits what in fact was the written Revelation of God and what wasn’t.
Certainly these men can and should use certain inclusion/exclusion criteria, but who then has the authority to determine what inclusion/exclusion criteria should be used to limit the Canon? It all becomes so subjective and arbitrary if there is no visible Church and no visible binding authority.
I have to admit, that many Reformed are clamoring to claim the title Catholic makes me crack a very wry smile.
Peter John
O
OfTheCross
Guest
Added a paragraph to my second post, double vision 
J
JPrejean
Guest
Mr. Engwer:
In the sincere desire not to take away from your excellent response, I won’t even attempt to detract from it. I think that you have explained yourself quite well, and in particular, I admire that you are willing to consider the full ramifications of that methodology. That is a rare trait, and I admire it.
For my part, I will say that I did not intend to detract from the work of Jurgens or the reasoning of the Magisterium on various subjects. Obviously, I find them all to be quite consistent with the Catholic historiography and patristic methodology. Not everyone accepts that methodology, and consequently, not everyone accepts its conclusions. On the other hand, not all of the aspersions cast upon that methodology by Kung et al. are fair.
My principal goal was to have people give some consideration to history and patristics as academic disciplines and to consider that the significance we assign to facts and the reliability of the conclusions we draw from facts is determined by the rules followed in that interpretation. A central reason for talking past one another is that, to a large extent, we look at the same facts from different perspectives and come to opposite conclusions. Yet we are each suspicious of the other’s methodology (as evidenced by my suspicion of Evangelical authors’ methods, Tim Enloe’s suspicion of Catholic historiography, etc.). I think that a useful dialogue (which this was, in my estimation) must include a sincere attempt to understand why someone else considers their position to be a reliable indicator of truth, even if we don’t agree with that assessment.
And that’s all the time I have to spend on this. Thanks for the gracious discussion, Mr. Engwer.
In the sincere desire not to take away from your excellent response, I won’t even attempt to detract from it. I think that you have explained yourself quite well, and in particular, I admire that you are willing to consider the full ramifications of that methodology. That is a rare trait, and I admire it.
For my part, I will say that I did not intend to detract from the work of Jurgens or the reasoning of the Magisterium on various subjects. Obviously, I find them all to be quite consistent with the Catholic historiography and patristic methodology. Not everyone accepts that methodology, and consequently, not everyone accepts its conclusions. On the other hand, not all of the aspersions cast upon that methodology by Kung et al. are fair.
My principal goal was to have people give some consideration to history and patristics as academic disciplines and to consider that the significance we assign to facts and the reliability of the conclusions we draw from facts is determined by the rules followed in that interpretation. A central reason for talking past one another is that, to a large extent, we look at the same facts from different perspectives and come to opposite conclusions. Yet we are each suspicious of the other’s methodology (as evidenced by my suspicion of Evangelical authors’ methods, Tim Enloe’s suspicion of Catholic historiography, etc.). I think that a useful dialogue (which this was, in my estimation) must include a sincere attempt to understand why someone else considers their position to be a reliable indicator of truth, even if we don’t agree with that assessment.
And that’s all the time I have to spend on this. Thanks for the gracious discussion, Mr. Engwer.
A
Apolonio
Guest
Jason:The term “church” has been defined in many different ways over the years. But, yes, the term sometimes refers to a universal (catholic) entity, such as the spiritual church of Ephesians 4:16 or its physical manifestation in the form of all local assemblies as a collective entity.
Response:
I would recomend Cardinal Dulles’s Models of the Church and Shawn McElhinney’s analysis of Dulles’s article for more information on the Church and how it was viewed.
Jason: He wasn’t a Pope, and the other apostles didn’t view him as a Pope. But he did have some leadership roles. He was often, though not always, a leader or spokesman among the disciples during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He was an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly life (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), an elder (1 Peter 5:1), and an evangelist who served a unique historical purpose (Acts 15:7). He was a rock upon whom the church was built. He was among the greatest of the apostles. I would place him second, after Paul, who I consider to be “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:63).
Response:
First, the quote of Origen saying that Paul was “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” can mean that he is the “greatest of the apostles”. But the word we have to focus on is the word “greatest”. Does “greatest” mean in authority or in grace. If in grace, then I can agree that one can have the possibility of having that interpretation. However, as Origen said elsewhere (as you probably know), he said that Peter was the great foundation of the Church, the most solid rock of rocks(Homilies on Exodus, and Ep ad rom lib). Also, Origen said that Paul is the “founder…of the Churches”. But notice how Origen uses the word “Churches” as in plural. In that context, he is speaking of particular churches, not the Church as the Universal Church. And yes, Paul did found churches as he also appointed bishops.
Jason: The concept of Peter’s chair has been defined in different ways over the centuries. Some church fathers refer to all bishops as successors of Peter or refer to a chair of Peter being in Antioch or some other place in addition to Rome. And the New Testament and the earliest church fathers say nothing of a chair of Peter at all. The church of Rome and the bishop of Rome were often prominent, sometimes even the most prominent church and bishop in the world, but not always and not necessarily in a papal sense. There’s a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Peter or the bishops of Rome. The church of Rome was prominent, but the bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope. The earliest sources to comment on the significance of the Roman church give non-papal reasons for the church’s significance. If there had been a papacy at the time, they surely would not only have mentioned it as a reason for the Roman church’s significance, but even as the primary reason. But they don’t mention it at all."
Response:
The style of the Papacy was different back then, but it still had jurisdiction. Alexandria was considered to be the court of appeal in the East and Rome was the court of appeal in the west and the whole Church. Also, Constantinople and Alexandria asked Rome for judgment many times. But I have not read Rome asking any other Patriarch for a judgment on the issue.
Response:
I would recomend Cardinal Dulles’s Models of the Church and Shawn McElhinney’s analysis of Dulles’s article for more information on the Church and how it was viewed.
Jason: He wasn’t a Pope, and the other apostles didn’t view him as a Pope. But he did have some leadership roles. He was often, though not always, a leader or spokesman among the disciples during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He was an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly life (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), an elder (1 Peter 5:1), and an evangelist who served a unique historical purpose (Acts 15:7). He was a rock upon whom the church was built. He was among the greatest of the apostles. I would place him second, after Paul, who I consider to be “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:63).
Response:
First, the quote of Origen saying that Paul was “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” can mean that he is the “greatest of the apostles”. But the word we have to focus on is the word “greatest”. Does “greatest” mean in authority or in grace. If in grace, then I can agree that one can have the possibility of having that interpretation. However, as Origen said elsewhere (as you probably know), he said that Peter was the great foundation of the Church, the most solid rock of rocks(Homilies on Exodus, and Ep ad rom lib). Also, Origen said that Paul is the “founder…of the Churches”. But notice how Origen uses the word “Churches” as in plural. In that context, he is speaking of particular churches, not the Church as the Universal Church. And yes, Paul did found churches as he also appointed bishops.
Jason: The concept of Peter’s chair has been defined in different ways over the centuries. Some church fathers refer to all bishops as successors of Peter or refer to a chair of Peter being in Antioch or some other place in addition to Rome. And the New Testament and the earliest church fathers say nothing of a chair of Peter at all. The church of Rome and the bishop of Rome were often prominent, sometimes even the most prominent church and bishop in the world, but not always and not necessarily in a papal sense. There’s a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Peter or the bishops of Rome. The church of Rome was prominent, but the bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope. The earliest sources to comment on the significance of the Roman church give non-papal reasons for the church’s significance. If there had been a papacy at the time, they surely would not only have mentioned it as a reason for the Roman church’s significance, but even as the primary reason. But they don’t mention it at all."
Response:
The style of the Papacy was different back then, but it still had jurisdiction. Alexandria was considered to be the court of appeal in the East and Rome was the court of appeal in the west and the whole Church. Also, Constantinople and Alexandria asked Rome for judgment many times. But I have not read Rome asking any other Patriarch for a judgment on the issue.
J
jco2004
Guest
Oh man, don’t get me started on that…over at another forum I frequent we have Eastern Orthodox and other non-Catholics and they call themselves “Orthodox Catholics” and things like that…irritating!
Why? It’s perfectly correct for them to call themselves that.
Why? It’s perfectly correct for them to call themselves that.
D
danny
Guest
Jason
Honestly,
I am very familiar with WW. I have read Salvation: the Bible and Roman Catholicism, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History and various writings on Sola Scriptura.(and sorry to say what a waste - the only thing I think was worse was Eric Svendsens Heos Hou nonsense)
His premise seems to be, "If no expert will write a book about what I beleive, why, I’ll write my own book and pass it off as true. Like his quote about why most early converts read the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew scriptures because they couldn’t read hebrew. How about most couldn’t read PERIOD. Literacy did not become common until after the industrial revolution. Most were converted by oral teaching!!!
back to my questions.
- The inspiration of the Holy spirit. - entirely unprovable. How do you know that the HS inspired or didn’t inspire The gospel of Peter??? of the Protevangelium of James??? or the Didache??
- A consensus. There isn’t any historical evidense that anyone accepted a Bible like yours until the reformation. Period. If you can cite one I’d love to see it, with references. There is, however many backing Catholics, especially after the late 300s, begining with Anathasius.
God Bless
Danielle
R
Ree
Guest
I hope you don’t mind if I address one of your points.
danny:
I’m not familiar with the quote you’re referring to, but are you asserting that the public reading of Scripture was not a prominent part of the life of the early church? If that’s not what you’re saying, then what’s the relevance of the literacy rate of the time? When reading to illiterate people, one generally reads in a language known to both the reader and the hearers.
P
p90
Guest
danny said:
Danielle,
I think JasonTE was referring to the New Testament canon being a general consensus, rather than the Old Testament one. That being the case, there is large support for the consensus point. You raise a potentially interesting objection–why would the general consensus for the Old Testament only apply during the era of the Jews, and not during the New Testament? However, that’s not something I want to address. I’d rather like to address the historical error your objection is based on.
You say that there are “many backing Catholics…begining with Anathasius.” I don’t know why you cite Athanasius since he held to a different Old Testament canon than your church does. If you can cite fathers in disagreement with the current Roman Catholic canon as supportive of it, why can’t Evangelicals do the same thing with fathers that disagree with their canon? Many fathers and important figures before the council of Trent rejected the Roman Catholic canon, including the main opponent of Luther during the Reformation, Cardinal Cajetan.
If you’re looking for fathers that held the complete Evangelical canon, Old and New Testaments, I believe that Jerome is one. He rejected the inspiration of the apocryphal books. You may correct me if I am wrong and I’m willing to provide documentation if it’s necessary, although it’s generally accepted information; even though the documentation will be quoted from William Webster, the material he quotes can’t be dismissed because of his other writings.
-M
J
JasonTE
Guest
I don’t think you’ve understood what I said earlier. I argued that the Old Testament canon was entrusted to the Jews, not the Christian church. I don’t argue that we went from no canon to a 66-book canon. Rather, I argue that the canon grew over time, and that the Old Testament was settled before the New Testament was.
I gave a link to some material by William Webster, in which he documents people agreeing with the Protestant Old Testament canon. Some of those people lived after the consensus on the 27-book New Testament canon. Jerome, for example, rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the 27-book New Testament canon.
Also, keep in mind that I mentioned three different means of discerning the canon. Would you explain to me how your questions are relevant to the first means I mentioned, the leading of the Holy Spirit? Why would such a means require an infallible ruling from a man or group of men, and why would you need a date for it? And why would you need a date for something like a canonical consensus? If the consensus can be documented to exist, why would you need a highly specified date for it? You refer to a “mysterious consensus”, but disparaging the concept with a word like “mysterious” does nothing to refute the concept. Are you going to criticize Jesus and the apostles for expecting the people of their day to recognize and obey the scriptures without any infallible ruling from a man or group of men? If you were alive at that time, would you have asked Jesus and the apostles to give you a date for when these books were canonized? Would you have asked them to name the man or group of men who made the decision? Would you have rejected what they said about scripture until an entity such as the RCC had given you an allegedly infallible ruling on the subject?
You keep asking who has the authority to tell us what canon to follow. Do you apply that reasoning consistently? Does every matter of truth have to be settled by an appeal to an authoritative man or group of men? How do you know that the RCC has the authority it claims to have? Do you appeal to the authority of Jesus and the apostles? Then how do you know that Jesus is who He claimed to be? Do you need an infallible ruling from a man or group of men to tell you who Jesus is? Who was that man or group of men? Can you give us a date for their ruling? Remember, you can’t appeal to what the RCC has taught about Jesus, since you have to know who Jesus is before you can argue for the RCC’s alleged authority.
Again, see the material by William Webster that I linked to earlier. There was widespread rejection of the Apocrypha prior to the Reformation. Right around the time of the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes published a translation of the Bible that denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha in its preface. The translation was dedicated to Pope Leo X, and its publication was approved by the Pope.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
J
JasonTE
Guest
I agree.
Sure, and thank you.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
O
OfTheCross
Guest
Why did Jerome, who supposedly rejected the OT deauterocanon, include them in the Latin Vulgate? That is a question that should be answered. Why would a man who denied their inspiration then include them in his translation of the Scripture into Latin? Why would he do such a thing???
This Latin Vulgate then had widespread consensus for over a millenium among Christians by widespread use and acceptance. The Canon was then restricted to 66 books at the time of the Reformation. And the questions still stand. Who restricted the Canon, what year, what authority did they have to make such a decision?
Peter John
O
OfTheCross
Guest
I should commend Jason as well. It’s not easy representing the minority view when we’re all throwing different questions at you. Thanks for taking the time to respond. 
Peter John
Peter John
J
JasonTE
Guest
I wasn’t referring to authority. No apostle is greatest in authority. They were equal in that regard.
Origen shows no indiciation in his writings of believing in the concept of a papacy. See my earlier citation of the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno. Many people believe that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 or that he was the greatest apostle, for example, without believing that he and the bishops of Rome are Popes.
Regardless of whether Rome asked for a judgment, Western and Eastern church leaders did sometimes assert independence from Rome or claim authority over Rome. The Second Council of Constantinople, for example, claimed authority over the bishop of Rome and excommunicated him.
Nobody in the earliest generations of Christianity refers to the bishops of Rome having universal jurisdiction. The absence of an early papacy, the office of universal jurisdiction that you refer to, is a consensus among both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 425). The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:
“There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no.’…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer…Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim.” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
O
OfTheCross
Guest
If the OT Canon was settled before the NT (I guess you talking about Jamnia), how did this slip past the Christians who used the Latin Vulgate for 1000 years before it was “discovered” that the Jews had the authority to close the Canon at the Reformation. Do you have any quotes from any Christians prior to the Reformation that state that the Jews had the authority to close the Canon. Why should I accept anyone’s statement that the Jews had the authority to close the OT Canon? Should all be based on some people’s interpretation that “the oracles of God were given to the Jews” = the Jews had the power to close the Canon. If they did, why should I accept that it was at Jamnia?
Is that when you believed they closed the OT Canon? Why is it so easy for you to come up with an exact year and group of men in this instance? If it wasn’t at Jamnia, when and where was it?
In regards to Jerome, see my post above.
Peter John
Is that when you believed they closed the OT Canon? Why is it so easy for you to come up with an exact year and group of men in this instance? If it wasn’t at Jamnia, when and where was it?
In regards to Jerome, see my post above.
Peter John
J
JasonTE
Guest
No, I’m not referring to Jamnia. There was no settling of the canon in relation to Jamnia.
Again, see the documentation at William Webster’s site, which I linked to earlier. There was widespread rejection of the Apocrypha among the church fathers and later pre-Reformation Christians. And some of the fathers who rejected part or all of the Apocrypha, such as Athanasius and Jerome, appealed to the Jews to justify their canon. The concept didn’t originate with the Reformation.
Because the evidence suggests that Jesus and the apostles accepted a canon that was widely known among the Jews. Josephus and other Jewish sources refer to a consensus among the Jews about a cessation of prophecy and the closing of the canon. The Apocrypha itself alludes to such a cessation. The evidence is against the RCC’s authority claims, so the RCC can’t be trusted to infallibly declare a canon for us. The evidence isn’t as clear as it could conceivably be, but the 39-book Old Testament canon is the best conclusion to the evidence that we do have.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
P
p90
Guest
He probably considered it useful and/or spiritually edifying reading. I don’t know specifically why he included it in his translation, and the question does not change whether he considered all of the Vulgate inspired material. However, note that people include material they don’t consider inspired in their translations all the time (maps and commentaries immediately come to mind).
-M
O
OfTheCross
Guest
I think to say there was “widespread rejection” of the OT deuterocanon among the early Fathers may be a bit too strong to say the least.
I am curious why Jerome, who according to you denied the deauterocanon, then included them in the Vulgate?
What Canon do you claim Jesus and the apostles used?
I’ll read Webster’s site on this issue, because I still have a bit to brush up on in this area. The argument so far seems to be that the Canon “just happened” over time, without being able to p(name removed by moderator)oint any specific group of men at any specific time that had any claim to be able to make such a decision.
As far as the Holy Spirit argument, I pretty much think its useless on any given issue in apologetics. Anyone can claim the Holy Spirit, its probably the most arbitrary argument that can be made. I feel the Catholic Church defined a 73 book Canon guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit confirms this in my heart. You believe the 66 book Canon was brought about over time at no specific date and by no specific group, and the Holy Spirit confirms this in your heart. I hope you see how absurd arguing via the Holy Spirit can be.
Peter John
O
OfTheCross
Guest
I find it an interesting coincidence that he included the seven exact deauterocanon that were declared as part of the Canon by three Church Councils and one Bishop of Rome. I think you would agree that even non-ecumenical Councils and the Bishop of Rome would be regarded much more authoratative in the early Church than a couple of early Church Fathers private disagreements in this matter. Are there any other local councils
that declared a 66 book Canon, or any Bishops of Rome that declared a 66 book Canon?
But Jerome was not in the business of translating “edifying reading”. He was in the business of translating the Holy Scriptures into Latin.
BTW, does anyone know if his statement against the deauterocanon was made prior to his translation or after his translation was complete? Obviously if he stated this prior to his translation, he could have changed his mind and subsequently included the deauterocanon. I think that would also have some bearing for or against using Jerome’s statement in regards to the Canon.
Peter John
- Status