Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Randy_Carson]

Great article by Steve Ray: catholicconvert.com/

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).

 

[adamhovey1988]

Great article by Steve Ray: catholicconvert.com/

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).

Holding…back…sarcastic comments

 

[Randy_Carson]

Holding…back…sarcastic comments

Probably wise. :sad_yes:

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thank you for sharing this article. I’m going to save it for when the topic comes up when speaking to Protestants.

 

[Sugarplumfairy]

Because I am new to this I will probably not always grasp what is being said. As a vulnerable person, weak in faith and searching for truth, love, peace, kindness, I just want to say God bless all those who show God’s love in their conversation. Once or twice I have noticed sarcasm, rivalry, against non-Catholics and I would ask those who are tempted to speak in that to please consider that flippant remarks may not seem much, but they can cause a brother or sister to stumble. If we cant be gracious to non-catholics, how will we ever be gracious to our enemies.? I am walking a very thin tightrope in my spiritual journey. How blessed when I hear gentle encouragement, and how destructive when I hear hard and haughty remarks. I hope this os understood as a genuine plea for support, for that’s all it is.

 

[Sugarplumfairy]

Because I am new to this I will probably not always grasp what is being said. As a vulnerable person, weak in faith and searching for truth, love, peace, kindness, I just want to say God bless all those who show God’s love in their conversation. Once or twice I have noticed sarcasm, rivalry, against non-Catholics and I would ask those who are tempted to speak in that to please consider that flippant remarks may not seem much, but they can cause a brother or sister to stumble. If we cant be gracious to non-catholics, how will we ever be gracious to our enemies.? I am walking a very thin tightrope in my spiritual journey. How blessed when I hear gentle encouragement, and how destructive when I hear hard and haughty remarks. I hope this os understood as a genuine plea for support, for that’s all it is.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Because I am new to this I will probably not always grasp what is being said. As a vulnerable person, weak in faith and searching for truth, love, peace, kindness, I just want to say God bless all those who show God’s love in their conversation. Once or twice I have noticed sarcasm, rivalry, against non-Catholics and I would ask those who are tempted to speak in that to please consider that flippant remarks may not seem much, but they can cause a brother or sister to stumble. If we cant be gracious to non-catholics, how will we ever be gracious to our enemies.? I am walking a very thin tightrope in my spiritual journey. How blessed when I hear gentle encouragement, and how destructive when I hear hard and haughty remarks. I hope this os understood as a genuine plea for support, for that’s all it is.

Which is why I didn’t post my sarcastic comment. Stick around for awhile, it cuts both ways. Welcome to CAF by the way, land of the circular argument.

 

[Sugarplumfairy]

Hello Adam. I understand what you mean, but two wrongs can never make a right. “A gentle answer turneth away wrath.” Sarcasm from any source just fans the flames. If only we could all just agree to disagree there would be no wars. I do thankyou for replying to my post. I live in a quite isolated way, and a brief conversation makes me feel I am still part of the human race.! God bless and keep you in His loving care.

 

[PolliceVerso]

Your average Protestant has no idea when or how the Canon was developed. For example, most view the Apocrypha as a Catholic addition to the Bible, when in reality the Apocrypha wasn’t questioned until the Reformation, and even then was included in Protestant Bibles commonly up until the mid-19th century. It is now officially considered edifying but not inspired, though most Protestants don’t even know that fact.

Protestants have little use for basic tradition (much less Sacred Tradition) or Church history, which is a major shortcoming, and a big reason for the lack of unity among Protestants today, as well as the proliferation of non-denominational churches.

 

[Hatikvah]

To be quite honest, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a thread addressed directly to Protestants. Yet, the wording may show lack of the Protestant understanding. One can only connect to an idea and its holders if they understand it thoroughly.

Why does the Church necessarily have to be “Protestant” or “Catholic”? The original people to use the word “Catholic” in their languages meant it in the sense of “universal,” as you would know. The Catholic Church today also uses it in this sense, but it is not alone.

The whole Church, no adjectives, is the Body of Christ, the communion of saints. The Bible was, in fact, not written by those who would even consider themselves “Catholic” or any adjectives. Yes, it was written by Jews in the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek New Testament was written by Christians (cf. Acts 11:26) like St. Paul and the evangelists.

Remember, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox also have a claim here: they were present at the First Council of Nicaea, when the canon was developed, and in the transferring of textual variants and works.

People from all over Christendom have partaken in our rich history and culture as Christians both then and now.

God bless.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t understand the question.

A Protestant has no choice but to make use of the scriptures included in the same fixed canon that a Catholic uses; these are the (almost) only books written by early Christians that still survive.
These books belong to *all *Christians.

Unfortunately, many holy scriptures were destroyed in the 4th Century and beyond once the official canon was closed that offered more diverse stories and interpretations of what Jesus said, meant and did.
Had they survived instead of being forcibly banned and burned, perhaps each Christian group would have been able to have their own canon.
Some, fortunately, have been found in the recent century–including the Nag Hammadi library, unearthed in 1945.

I see many problems in the article you posted.
To name just a few:

– “the book in question must have been written in apostolic times by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle”.
But…we don’t know who wrote some of the books, so we don’t know if that criteria was met. We have since discovered that many of the books we thought were written by someone were not (for example; many of Paul’s letters).

–Of course one can choose to be Protestant and choose to interpret the scripture their own way. When these books were written, they were not limited to one group and their view.

–“Who meticulously copied, preserved, protected, and guarded it with their lives.”.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t have the thousands of mistakes via the copying, and we’d have some surviving original manuscripts.

It looks like Marcion of Sinope was the first to put together a list of books for a canon of Christian scripture that later became the canon we know today.
Tho an early leader in Christianity, he was later considered a “heretic” by the Catholic church I think…and is often described today as a Gnostic philosopher.
And yet, he was instrumental in putting the canon together.

So…in answer to the article’s question…a “heretic”/gnostic philosopher also helped to give Protestants and Catholics their bible.

.

You kind of put the cart before the horse here.

Yes, there were lots of writings extant at that time. Some were accepted as part of the Canon, others were rejected. Why were they rejected? What criteria were used?

 

[susanlo]

The Old Testament was written by Jewish Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was accepted as Scripture before Jesus was born and confirmed by Jesus during his time on earth.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles and those who worked closely with them. They were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were recognized as inspired right away and were even cited and referred to as Scripture within the NT Scripture. Over the early centuries there were a few debates about certain books, but on a whole the Scriptures were widely accepted by those within the church. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) compiled a list of the 27 books mentioning 5 that were disputed: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html Later Athanasius (296-373) writes a complete list:newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

I think it is clear from all of the Scripture references in the writings in the early centuries summarized in charts such as this (ntcanon.org/table.shtml) that Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before there was a council. If the Christians in the centuries before any of the councils could use Scripture and know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why must someone today who believes the same thing about these writings have to accept the authority of the council? I don’t agree with that claim that the author of your link is making. If my church would have a council and decree that the book of Matthew is canonical, and you think it is canonical, does that mean that you have to believe everything that my church believes as well?

This is a good summary I found recently about the development of the NT Canon: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/kent-hownt-gtj-67.pdf

 

[Duane1966]

Unfortunately, many holy scriptures were destroyed in the 4th Century and beyond once the official canon was closed that offered more diverse stories and interpretations of what Jesus said, meant and did.
Had they survived instead of being forcibly banned and burned, perhaps each Christian group would have been able to have their own canon.
Some, fortunately, have been found in the recent century–including the Nag Hammadi library, unearthed in 1945.

How do we know they are holy? Who determines what is holy? Each individual?

I see many problems in the article you posted.
To name just a few:

I see many problems with what you have posted, here they are:

– “the book in question must have been written in apostolic times by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle”.
But…we don’t know who wrote some of the books, so we don’t know if that criteria was met. We have since discovered that many of the books we thought were written by someone were not (for example; many of Paul’s letters).

Actually, what you posted is not true. They don’t know if St. Paul wrote them, or not. The question has not been answered definitively yet.

–Of course one can choose to be Protestant and choose to interpret the scripture their own way. When these books were written, they were not limited to one group and their view.

Actually most of the books, were written to one group. That is why you have letters to the Romans, to Ephesians, Corinthians, etc. Did the author of that Scripture intend for their to be many views of what he wrote? Would the author be okay with many different views?

–“Who meticulously copied, preserved, protected, and guarded it with their lives.”.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t have the thousands of mistakes via the copying, and we’d have some surviving original manuscripts.

Since there was no real knowledge of how to preserve papyri back then, anything that was written and not put in a container and sealed, would have 0% chance of surviving.

It looks like Marcion of Sinope was the first to put together a list of books for a canon of Christian scripture that later became the canon we know today.
Tho an early leader in Christianity, he was later considered a “heretic” by the Catholic church I think…and is often described today as a Gnostic philosopher.
And yet, he was instrumental in putting the canon together.

Yes, and no. The early Church viewed Marcion’s canon as alternative, not the one that they implicitly knew. The early Church was horrified at what he held to be the canon. Marcion’s canon excluded the Old Testament. He only accepted Luke and ten Pauline epistles, and these he edited, purging them of anything that did not agree with his views.

So…in answer to the article’s question…a “heretic”/gnostic philosopher also helped to give Protestants and Catholics their bible.

Actually, the Lutheran scholar Theodor Zahn posited that the canon for the Church was already well know before Marcion, which is why the Fathers reacted so sharply to Marcion’s canon. So in reality Marcion had nothing to do with giving Catholic’s their bible. Maybe he has a lot to do with the Protestant bible. Taken from this website: bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html

Theodor Zahn (1838-1933) was a staunchly conservative scholar in the Lutheran tradition and an implacable foe of theological liberalism. His major works were Geschichte des Kanons (1888-90) and Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1906). He did much valuable research in the area of patristics and was unrivalled in his field.

His approach is to begin with the first point which stands in a clear light, 20** namely the Church’s interaction with those heretics who came with an alternative canon.** He then works back as far as evidence will permit, i.e. to the origin or beginning of the canon forming process. Then he works in the other direction, namely the Church’s reaction in response to the challenges presented by the heretics. This method leads him to conclude that from the beginning the Church had a New Testament in addition to the Jewish canon. The Church has shown an implicit awareness of this new collection of writings, and of the fact that this collection stands on a par with the Old Testament with respect to authority. The significance of heresies was that it forced the Church into a clearer understanding of what it had. The function of heresy is catalytic and not constitutive. It hastened a process. This explains why it is that during the period 170-220 we get a clear glimpse of what was held to be the canon for the first time. Zahn’s position has in essence been the basic orthodox position ever since. For example, in 1986 David Dunbar could write:

• The oral and written apostolic witness to Christ was that from which the primitive Church drew its life. The process by which the written form of that witness rose to increasing prominence and was gradually defined in the canonical understanding of the Church was both natural and spontaneous. The process was, to a great extent, underway before the Christian community was aware of its implications. From this perspective the sharp reaction of the Fathers to Marcion and the Gnostics is to be seen, not as a de novo selection of an alternative canon, but rather as a making explicit of what had always been implicit in the life of the Church" 21*

 

[Tarquin]

Thank you for those links, Susanlo.

 

[eatpraylove11]

Holding…back…sarcastic comments

 

[Hatikvah]

Holding…back…sarcastic comments

I appreciate it…

 

[adamhovey1988]

I appreciate it…

Hatikvah, many Protestants have come here to start fights. You have always been kind, charitable, reasonable, and sincere, and I much appreciate that.

 

[Tarquin]

“Who meticulously copied, preserved, protected, and guarded it with their lives.”.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t have the thousands of mistakes via the copying, and we’d have some surviving original manuscripts.

Even the very first copy may have had mistakes. I type carefully, yet still make typos such as their/there, from/form, and erring in subject-verb agreement. Despite those errors, my meaning comes across. There are thousands of fragments of New Testament scripture, and they have been compared exhaustively. The vast majority of variants relate to spelling and grammar, and the use of synonyms and paraphrasis. When it comes to actual core doctrines, however, the New Testament is comparatively consistent. The New Testament books are more reliable than older documents which while debated, do not lead people to conclude the reports on Julius Caesar are false, or that the copies we have of the Code of Hammurabi are mistaken. Because of the great agreement among the texts, it is pretty certain what the original meaning was.

 

[Duane1966]

The Old Testament was written by Jewish Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was accepted as Scripture before Jesus was born and confirmed by Jesus during his time on earth.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles and those who worked closely with them. They were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were recognized as inspired right away and were even cited and referred to as Scripture within the NT Scripture. Over the early centuries there were a few debates about certain books, but on a whole the Scriptures were widely accepted by those within the church. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) compiled a list of the 27 books mentioning 5 that were disputed: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html Later Athanasius (296-373) writes a complete list:newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

I think it is clear from all of the Scripture references in the writings in the early centuries summarized in charts such as this (ntcanon.org/table.shtml) that Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before there was a council. If the Christians in the centuries before any of the councils could use Scripture and know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why must someone today who believes the same thing about these writings have to accept the authority of the council? I don’t agree with that claim that the author of your link is making. If my church would have a council and decree that the book of Matthew is canonical, and you think it is canonical, does that mean that you have to believe everything that my church believes as well?

This is a good summary I found recently about the development of the NT Canon: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/kent-hownt-gtj-67.pdf

You miss an important point of the councils. It is not just telling the Church what is Scripture, and can be read at the Liturgy. Just as importantly, the council is telling us what is not Scripture. Without a council, who determines what is not Scripture? As you can see in an above posting, the poster is willing to add as Holy Scripture books that that council, which you say was really unneeded in determining the canon, explicitly rejected.

You say that council only canonized what was already well known to be Scripture. If this is true, then seven books that you reject, were already well known as Scripture. If those councils had never canonized the books of the New and Old Testament for the Church, are you sure your bible would look as it does today? Your bible does not look like the bible of the Church up to the early sixteenth century, and still does not look like mine. I know of churches that are beginning to reject the Pauline epistles. They say to them, it is obvious from Paul’s writings that he was not an Apostle. They agree with you that councils were not needed to determine Scripture.

My own personal opinion, in fifty years you will find many non-Catholic, non-Orthodox churches, that will have from a slightly different, to a vastly different bible, then the one you know now.

 

[Hatikvah]

Hatikvah, many Protestants have come here to start fights. You have always been kind, charitable, reasonable, and sincere, and I much appreciate that.

I also appreciate you for being kind and charitable, Adam.

Especially with all the negativity that has been going on in the world lately, I’ve been joyed to be a member of CAF. It’s great how people of different faiths can (for the most part ) come together and have a dialogue.