Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Randy_Carson]

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

It was within the context of this one Church, the Catholic Church, that the NT was authored by and for its members under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and it is through and from the Catholic Church that all of Christendom has received the written word of God.

 

[Kliska]

There isn’t one agreed upon canon. There’s the Catholic canon, the Orthodox canon(s), and Protestant canon. Further, we see that it is possible for people to examine the evidence of a manuscript and see if it meets a set of criteria; meaning, that is not a skill that was lost mysteriously after the 200’s/300’s.

Also, I don’t see how the answer for all of us isn’t “God gave us the scriptures.” We do owe our thanks to all the Jewish prophets, scholars, and scribes for what we label the OT, and we do owe our thanks to all the Christian apostles, scholars, and scribes for the NT, as well as the congregations that kept them alive and well (and circulating). In short, I understand why some want to use the collected scriptures as some kind of apologetic for Catholicism, but IMO, there are much more accurate and stronger arguments for the Catholic Church being The Universal Church… I just don’t agree with those arguments either… yet.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

This is a topic that goes un-discussed in protestant circles. They typically don’t care all they know is they have the book and that’s all they need. Obviously there are exceptions, but speaking generally this is what i personally saw.

And, in the more anti-Catholic circles, they mislead you and tell you that the RCC “added” 7 books to the bible at Trent. Total nonsense.

And contrary to the person’s opinion above me, with all due respect, i think this is a very strong argument for Catholicism…a true sticking point for those who love scripture…and that would make up most of protestantism.

No matter what branch of Christianity you are a part of, you are relying on a human source OUTSIDE the bible to tell you what the NT is supposed to look like. And if that source isn’t credible ( 1 Tim 3:15 ) then our whole house comes crashing down.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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

Hi susan.

Question for you…who wrote the gospel according to Mark? And how do you know?

 

[Padres1969]

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.

I’d take that bet. I mean Protestantism has existed since the 1500’s and in all that time and other than the removal of the Deuterocanonical books by some denominations, which were not a part of the original Hebrew scriptures, no major changes have been made to the bible in over 400 years (beyond the obvious differences in translations, but that’s not even a Protestant only issue).

And if you want to get down to it the Catholic Church has removed a book or two over the years itself that the other “true church” in the East still includes (as do some Protestants). 1 Esdras being a prime example of that.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I’d take that bet. I mean Protestantism has existed since the 1500’s and in all that time and other than the removal of the Deuterocanonical books by some denominations, which were not a part of the original Hebrew scriptures, no major changes have been made to the bible in over 400 years (beyond the obvious differences in translations, but that’s not even a Protestant only issue).

And if you want to get down to it the Catholic Church has removed a book or two over the years itself that the other “true church” in the East still includes (as do some Protestants). 1 Esdras being a prime example of that.

Indeed. Where did we get our Bible? Ask God. He authored it and by means of His Holy Spirit inspired His servants to compile and settle the canon. I’ve read both Bibles ( Catholic and Protestant) meticulously over a period of nearly thirty years and the Message remains what it always was: Law and Gospel.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Sources, please, for all of this “Protestants this” and “Protestants that.” Please be specific about who you think has little use for tradition.
The reason western noncatholic communions are not in unity with each other is the same reason Rome is not in communion with any of them or the EO: doctrine.
Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican communions all have a lot of use for tradition.

The statement that the DCs, and the NT antilegomena for that matter, weren’t questioned is just historically inaccurate.

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And if you want to get down to it the Catholic Church has removed a book or two over the years itself that the other “true church” in the East still includes (as do some Protestants). 1 Esdras being a prime example of that.

Are you talking about these Catholic Churches in the east from other rites?

Because the same bible decreed by Pope Damasus in 382AD is the same bible we hold today. The disputes(major ones anyway) ended with Jerome and a few others of that era until Luther.

 

[commenter]

I’d take that bet. I mean Protestantism has existed since the 1500’s and in all that time and other than the removal of the Deuterocanonical books by some denominations, which were not a part of the original Hebrew scriptures, no major changes have been made to the bible in over 400 years (beyond the obvious differences in translations, but that’s not even a Protestant only issue).

Joseph Smith, and like-minded Western Christians who were not Catholic nor Orthodox, had Reformation-based past spiritual heritages, and were deeply devoted to the KJV. But they also identified other books explicitly as scripture. Other Western Christian groups, not Catholic nor EO, especially those utilizing the Seventh Day sabbath, identified other works almost to the level of scripture.

In the last 3 years, the then president of the UCC, along with a few other Protestant leaders well below the level of president, recommended A New New Testament, which adds books to the NT. It has thus far been accepted by very few congregations, but I believe has some acceptance in a small minority of campuses. This movement may grow, but as the earlier poster suggested, a number of different NT canons may be circulating among Protestants, I bet in a lot fewer than 50 years.

 

[commenter]

we see that it is possible for people to examine the evidence of a manuscript and see if it meets a set of criteria; meaning, that is not a **skill **that was lost mysteriously after the 200’s/300’s.

There are no scriptural criteria for deciding scripture, they are all man-made. Many books meet one criterion but not others. Some in the Bible don’t meet certain criteria, some outside the Bible meet some criteria, but did not get accepted. We have no idea if these are even the “right” criteria, at all. Scholars disagreed in ancient times, and today, whether a certain book meets or lacks certain criteria. **There are no “criteria” to justify adding a NT to the Bible at all. ** All this points towards some agency besides, or above, the criteria. It’s not a question of skill, it’s a question of an authoritative agency for communicating God’s choice. The Christian gnostic canon-makers had “skill” too. So what?

If scholars today start out with a template, this specific 27 book NT canon that you and I use, and were given the direction “there must be a New Testament”, they can then design criteria that may produce, voila!, this same 27 book canon. (If they started with a gnostic template, they could backward-engineer criteria that would justify that gnostic canon, and those beliefs). The tables you cite in your post presuppose a template, based on the religion of the familiar 27 books previously chosen (by whom?) for the NT. Gnostics, with equal “skill” would cite different tables of course, based on a different template.

But nothing in the criteria tell you which template to follow, which canon to reproduce, or justify writing a New Testament, at all. All that came from God, through the Magisterium. No Magisterium, then no written NT, and not this specific NT canon.

 

[Padres1969]

Joseph Smith, and like-minded Western Christians who were not Catholic nor Orthodox, had Reformation-based past spiritual heritages, and were deeply devoted to the KJV. But they also identified other books explicitly as scripture. Other Western Christian groups, not Catholic nor EO, especially those utilizing the Seventh Day sabbath, identified other works almost to the level of scripture.

In the last 3 years, the then president of the UCC, along with a few other Protestant leaders well below the level of president, recommended A New New Testament, which adds books to the NT. It has thus far been accepted by very few congregations, but I believe has some acceptance in a small minority of campuses. This movement may grow, but as the earlier poster suggested, a number of different NT canons may be circulating among Protestants, I bet in a lot fewer than 50 years.

Joseph Smith was not a Christian. He created an entirely new religion and indeed wrote his own scriptures that he had his new religion utilize along side the Christian bible. That’s an entirely different issue from what you’re proposing is occurring with Protestants since Mormons are not Protestants or even Christians. And your other examples again, are not modifications of the bible in the manner suggested, nor are they additions that rise to the level of scripture as you admit (I can’t be any more specific since you neglected to provide specific examples). If you were referring to the SDA’s, as I recall they actually use the standard core of the Christian bible as justification for their view, albeit a different reading of the same that is done by most other Christians including Catholics.

As for the UCC they have not officially made any changes to scriptural canon, nor have any other Christian denominations. The UCC still utilizes the NRSV translation of the bible. Now the “New” New Testament was compiled, and indeed Catholic scholars and non Christians scholars were as involved as Protestant ones in doing so But those that compiled that work had no intention that their work be used for any kind of authoritative theology or canon on par with the bible.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Indeed. Where did we get our Bible? Ask God. He authored it and by means of His Holy Spirit inspired His servants to compile and settle the canon. I’ve read both Bibles ( Catholic and Protestant) meticulously over a period of nearly thirty years and the Message remains what it always was: Law and Gospel.

And determined it through His Holy Catholic Church.

 

[commenter]

Joseph Smith was not a Christian. He created an entirely new religion and indeed wrote his own scriptures that he had his new religion utilize along side the Christian bible. That’s an entirely different issue from what you’re proposing is occurring with Protestants since Mormons are not Protestants or even Christians.

But Smith was Protestant 10 minutes before he added books to the Bible. Mormons claim to be Christians today. If you assume their canon, they are orthodox Christians.

If you argue, “Mormons, or anyone else, who adds books to the Bible immediately cease to be Protestant, because they aren’t allowed to do that”… Then you argue, “See, there are no cases of Protestants adding books to the Bible”… well, circular reasoning.

As for the UCC they have not officially made any changes to scriptural canon, nor have any other Christian denominations. The UCC still utilizes the NRSV translation of the bible. Now the “New” New Testament was compiled, and indeed Catholic scholars and non Christians scholars were as involved as Protestant ones in doing so But those that compiled that work had no intention that their work be used for any kind of authoritative theology or canon on par with the bible.

The New New Testament itself asserts that congregations gradually should begin introducing the new books into church services and religious education, as Scripture readings. That is their clear intention.
You are correct in that the UCC still endorses the traditional canon. Unlike other denominations, it permits the new canon. To my knowledge, this is rarely used at present.

 

[Hockeygurl]

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.

1. Not true, the church I grew up in and was confirmed in required a massive amount of hours spent studying scripture, catechism (pretty much memorizing the whole thing), history, theology, as well as where the bible came from.
2. Please answer this question. My 17 year old daughter was just confirmed catholic.
   Already this summer I have had to inform her
   1. that she is unable to take communion outside of a catholic church/service.
   2. She may not use artificial Birth control. (after marriage of course and for contraceptive purposes).
   3. Missing Mass is a sin.
   
   Now please say again why we have a lack of unity? Answer: POOR EDUCATION.
   
   P.S I got a bill from the church for this education. There will be a letter from me along with my “payment” seriously questioning the quality of education she received.

 

[Padres1969]

But Smith was Protestant 10 minutes before he added books to the Bible. Mormons claim to be Christians today. If you assume their canon, they are orthodox Christians.

If you argue, “Mormons, or anyone else, who adds books to the Bible immediately cease to be Protestant, because they aren’t allowed to do that”… Then you argue, “See, there are no cases of Protestants adding books to the Bible”… well, circular reasoning.
The New New Testament itself asserts that congregations gradually should begin introducing the new books into church services and religious education, as Scripture readings. That is their clear intention.
You are correct in that the UCC still endorses the traditional canon. Unlike other denominations, it permits the new canon. To my knowledge, this is rarely used at present.

No the Mormons aren’t Christian not because they created an entirely new Scriptural canon. They’re not Christian because they don’t believe in the base belief’s of Christianity, namely the Triune God. They don’t believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Christians do. As for being Protestant, their religion did not come from the Protestant Reformation so it’s not Protestant either.

As for the UCC permitting the “new canon” you’d have to provide some proof of that. Because nothing I see supports that.

 

[adf417]

There isn’t one agreed upon canon. There’s the Catholic canon, the Orthodox canon(s), and Protestant canon.

The qty of canons is not the problem.

Further, we see that it is possible for people to examine the evidence of a manuscript and see if it meets a set of criteria; meaning, that is not a skill that was lost mysteriously after the 200’s/300’s.

Hind sight is 20/20

Also, I don’t see how the answer for all of us isn’t “God gave us the scriptures.” We do owe our thanks to all the Jewish prophets, scholars, and scribes for what we label the OT, and we do owe our thanks to all the Christian apostles, scholars, and scribes for the NT, as well as the congregations that kept them alive and well (and circulating). In short, I understand why some want to use the collected scriptures as some kind of apologetic for Catholicism, but IMO, there are much more accurate and stronger arguments for the Catholic Church being The Universal Church… I just don’t agree with those arguments either… yet.

I would agree with this language if it were our common language but it is not. We don’t say “God invented the light bulb” we say “Thomas Edison invented the light bulb”. We probably should say, in proper praise to God, “Thomas Edison, guided by the Holy Spirit, invented the light bulb”. But i dont think you will ever teach your children that “God invented or gave us the light bulb” without including the detail mechanism, Thomas Edison, in the dialogue.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

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.

There’s the rub: in my experience, Protestants cannot seem to get their stories straight (no offense intended) about what the word “Catholic” means – in particular, about whether it mean ICWR.

 

[Peter_J]

Hatikvah, many Protestants have come here to start fights.

I wouldn’t go quite that far: I think what happens isn’t that they *wish *to start fights, but rather that any conversation that is (if you will) a fight-in-the-making interests them greatly.

Edit: Of course I, like you, am not speaking of all Protestant posters but many of them.

 

[susanlo]

Hi susan.

Question for you…who wrote the gospel according to Mark? And how do you know?

The text doesn’t specify who wrote it. While we can not know for certain, many early Christian writers who were closer to the source have identified that it was John Mark who worked closely with Peter.

Author

Strictly speaking, the work is anonymous, in that no claim of authorship is inherently made within the letter itself. However, there is evidence both in Scripture and in history to support John Mark, cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), early traveling companion of Paul (Acts 12:25), and spiritual son of Peter (I Peter 5:13) as the author of the gospel.

Internal Evidence

The non-literary writing style and syntactical features probably indicate that the author’s first language was not Greek, but rather a Semitic language such as Aramaic ^[1]^. The author also includes vivid details that are unnecessary to the flow of the narrative, an indication that the author is writing from eyewitness accounts ^[2]^. These factors can be interpreted as consistent with the traditional view that Mark, a Palestinian Jew, wrote the gospel using Peter as his source.

External Evidence

The internal evidence is corroborated by early attestations, including an ancient caption (“according to Mark”), and testimony by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen ^[3]^. The nearly universal acceptance of Mark as the author of the gospel in light of the fact that he was neither an apostle nor a hero in the first century church lends credence to the validity of the traditional claim that John Mark wrote the gospel which bears his name.

theopedia.com/gospel-of-mark

 

[commenter]

No the Mormons aren’t Christian not because they created an entirely new Scriptural canon. They’re not Christian because they don’t believe in the base belief’s of Christianity, namely the Triune God. They don’t believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Christians do.

Is there a visible human authority, identifiable in the 1800s or now, that can rule out the Mormon books as not being inspired Scripture?

If you respond, “consensus” that means the Mormon books are non scriptural only because they were outvoted (for the moment) by the majority of scholars, or believers, who claimed to be Christian; remember the Mormons claim to be Christian too. Thus not scripture.

But what if someday the majority of persons claiming to be Christian agrees the Book of Mormon should be added to the Bible. Would consensus rule in 2050? add Mormon books? And maybe some of Paul’s epistles get voted off the island? I could see **that **happening long before 2050, long before the Book of Mormon getting voted in.

Or is there some other agent, besides nose counting?