Could people know what Scripture was before the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NHL0403
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NHL0403 said:
My questions is are we (The Catholic Church) saying it is possible to know what is inspired Scripture without the Church?
Click to expand...
If Christians can get their head around the fact that Scripture came from God and God’s covenant with the Jews, and that as Jesus and his followers grew out of Judaism, then yes, the vast majority of Scripture was revealed and defined outside the Catholic Church.
 
Is that the correct response of the Catholic Church? That the majority of Scripture was defined apart from the Church?

Please Help!
 
NHL0403 said:
My questions is are we (The Catholic Church) saying it is possible to know what is inspired Scripture without the Church?
Click to expand...
What is your doubt, exactly? Are there books in the Catholic canon that you think ought not to be there? Or are there books that got left out of the canon that you think ought to have been included?
 
I’ve always thought that it was the Church who gave us the Scriptures and the only way we know what the Scriptures are is through the Church. But my question led me to the fact that if the old testament was defined as Scripture without the need of the Church, wouldn’t that be admitting to the fact that there is a way of knowing what the Scriptures are apart from the Church?

Does that make sense as to what my question is?
 
The Catholic canon was settled at the Council of Rome in 382, organized by Jerome on behalf of Pope Damasus I. As far as anyone knows, it was Jerome himself who had already pretty much decided which books were in and which were out, even before the council opened. I still don’t really see what you are driving at. History is history. That is what happened. Do you think the council made mistakes that need to be rectified?
 
NHL0403 said:
I’ve always thought that it was the Church who gave us the Scriptures and the only way we know what the Scriptures are is through the Church
Click to expand...
That is not accurate since the Jewish Scriptures existed long before the Christian additions. They existed apart and distinctly separate from what followed in the Gospels and letters.
 
BartholomewB said:
Do you think the council made mistakes that need to be rectified?
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like the OP is trying to prove that the Catholic Church is basically redundant if any kind of Scripture existed before the establishment of the Church by Christ.
 
I think the OP is confused about infallibly defining something and what it signifies.

The analogy is like a court interpreting laws.

No the Chirch didn’t “give” us the Scriptures. She defined the canon of Scriptures to us.

Now the OP may find it odd that the Apostles didn’t infallibly know the canon of Scriptures. But this is not much odder then the fact no one at present know whether, say, the NAB is an infallible translation of the Bible. Because that has never been defined by the church. Now that does not conclude that I don’t know whether the NAB bible in front of me is the bible or not or whether I should believe in it. I don’t have to wait for a council to define infallibly whether the NAB is a good translation or not. Same situation with the Apostles. When they quoted Scripture I think they are confident about it but not infallible.
NHL0403 said:
how could the people in the old testament or know what the Scriptures were?
Click to expand...
How could I know what translation version of the bible is the correct one?
 
Last edited:
NHL0403 said:
I understand that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, but the Old Testament was being used as authoritative Scripture by Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostles before the Church ever said what Scripture was. My questions is are we (The Catholic Church) saying it is possible to know what is inspired Scripture without the Church?
Click to expand...
If Jesus was saying Old Testament books were authoritative then at least some of the Scripture was canonized by Him. But I’d ask you how do you figure Jesus or others were saying a book was canon? Can you give an example? Simply quoting something doesn’t mean it is canon.
 
According to 2 Kings 22, after the Jews returned from Babylon, they found a copy of the Law as they rebuilt the Temple:
The high priest Hilkiah informed the scribe Shaphan, “I have found the book of the law in the temple.” Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, who read it. Then the scribe Shaphan went to the king and reported, “Your servants have smelted down the silver deposited in the temple and have turned it over to the master workers in the house of the LORD.” The scribe Shaphan also informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book,” and then Shaphan read it in the presence of the king.When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his garments.

The king then issued this command to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, son of Shaphan, Achbor, son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant: “Go, consult the LORD for me, for the people, and for all Judah, about the words of this book that has been found, for the rage of the LORD has been set furiously ablaze against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, nor do what is written for us.” So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophet, wife of Shallum, son of Tikvah…
Click to expand...
King Josiah had the Law read for all the inhabitants of Jerusalem…

Where the prophet Huldah authenticated the Law, the prophets spoke God’s word themselves. The writings, the last section of the Hebrew bible were later writings and were accepted within the context of the Law and the Prophets.

“Apostolic tradition” called on people to hold on to the traditions they had received. See for example 2 Thes 2 “hold fast to the traditions that you were taught.” This meant retaining the books already revered, along with other traditions.
 
I’m sorry for the delayed response but since I’m a new user it made me wait 24 hrs before responding.

I am sorry for the confusion, for I am not seeking to prove anything. On the contrary I am seeking the official answer of the Church as to weather or not the old testament was recognized as Scripture during the time of Christ before the Church was set up to define it?

This would not disprove any authority of the Church, but rather, would clarify what the Church Herself answers regarding this question. Hope this is understood! Thank you.

Blessings
 
NHL0403 said:
I am seeking the official answer of the Church as to weather or not the old testament was recognized as Scripture during the time of Christ before the Church was set up to define it?
Click to expand...
The short answer is Yes, it was, though that’s a bit of an oversimplification. When Jesus and others in the NT quote “the Scriptures” or “the Law and the Prophets,” they are referring to the Jewish canon as it existed at the time (see my post #19 on this thread.) But they were speaking as Jews, not as Christians. The Church later took over the Jewish canon and added to it. It added, specifically, seven OT books not included in the Jewish canon (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch). It also added the whole of the NT, 27 books. So the Jewish canon was incorporated into the Christian canon, but it’s not the whole of it. Does that answer your question?
 
Last edited:
Very interesting! Yes it does!! Thank you for your time and effort. It leads me to one further questions though.

Would we, the Catholic Church then say that people could recognize Scripture as Scripture without the guide of the Church? Though not infallibly know of course?
 
My response was meant to address those issues. Josiah consulted Huldah to reestablish the Law as God’s word for Israel. The same Spirit who inspired Huldah inspired the Church.

This was accepted as part of the tradition that St Paul said we should hold on to.

There is another part to this I could not find today. The scriptures were written in and for God’s people. The Church recognizes them as authentic, but it is the inspiration that makes them scripture. Mountains exist, and tour guides take us to them, but it is not the tour guide who makes them into mountains; the mountains are mountains. Scripture is like that almost, in that the monumental works are pointed out by the Church, but are important because they are inspired by God. It is not the Church that makes them scripture, but the Church recognizes them.
 
I understand that, but when Josiah consulted Huldah to reestablish the Law as God’s Word for Israel, that wouldn’t be the Church, but the Jewish people (still God’s people) recognizing it as Scripture without the Church having yet been formed.

That’s what the Church Herself would claim, correct?
 
Your first version of the question was:
NHL0403 said:
how could the people in the old testament or know what the Scriptures were?
Click to expand...
They knew when the King heard it and was spurred to repentance. They knew it by consulting a prophet to know if it was God’s word.

Besides it let me mention Huldah, one of the most important women of the Hebrew scriptures.
 
BartholomewB said:
The Church later took over the Jewish canon and added to it. It added, specifically, seven OT books not included in the Jewish canon (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch).
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure that’s really accurate. The Catholic Church did not add any books to the Old Testament, as many Protestants claim. I believe all those books were already included in the Greek Septuagint, which was the predominant source of Jewish Scriptures used in the Temple and synagogues, at the time of Jesus. The currently accepted Jewish Scriptures do not contain them because they had removed them from their “Bible” sometime after the time of Jesus. Some people say that the reasoning behind their removal was because many of the Messianic prophecies that clearly pointed to Jesus were written in those books. Some of them were also quoted by Jesus and the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. My question had less to do with the canons (the Jews had two different ones during the time of Christ?) I think. But rather about a person regognizing that Genesis is divinly inspired without the Church needing to say so. If that makes sense.

Would you agree with telstar BartholomewB?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top