Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[susanlo]

That’s not reasonable. How can you prove the “the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list”, when the council took place they found many liturgies using books written by heretics and or uninspired books.

The Muratorian Fragment is thought to be from 170 AD and lists 22 out of 27 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter and 3 John. It mentions the revelation of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas can’t be read in church as well as rejecting writings of Valentinus, Marcion and others.
ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml

Eusebius wrote a Church History in the early 4th century. He lived from approx. 260-340. He lists all of the current NT books as accepted, but mentions that a few dispute the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John despite being accepted by many. He lists the Shepherd of Hermas (so-called Shepherd), the Didache (the so-called Teachings of the Apostles), Apocalypse of Peter and others as rejected books.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html

Athanasius lived from 296-373 and he wrote a letter containing the books that were accepted within the church. There is slight variance with the Old Testament, but the New Testament books match the current Bible.
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

 

[susanlo]

Are you suggesting that affirming and closing a Canon was superfluous? Was it unecessary, or without effect?

Yes. I don’t think it was necessary.
Do you think without a decree of a council that the Scriptires that had been preserved and taught from for over 300 years would have ceased to exist at some point in time?

 

[commenter]

The Muratorian Fragment is thought to be from 170 AD and lists 22 out of 27 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter and 3 John. It mentions the revelation of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas can’t be read in church as well as rejecting writings of Valentinus, Marcion and others.
ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml

Eusebius wrote a Church History in the early 4th century. He lived from approx. 260-340. He lists all of the current NT books as accepted, but mentions that a few dispute the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John despite being accepted by many. He lists the Shepherd of Hermas (so-called Shepherd), the Didache (the so-called Teachings of the Apostles), Apocalypse of Peter and others as rejected books.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html

Athanasius lived from 296-373 and he wrote a letter containing the books that were accepted within the church. There is slight variance with the Old Testament, but the New Testament books match the current Bible.
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

With all due respect, to me you seem to be cherry-picking. You only choose authorities that were declared to be authoritative by some ancient Magisterium. You have not, thus far, quoted from any of the other Christian canons, Christian councils, Christian scholars declared heretical by the ancient Magisterium. **If **one assumes the Magisterium’s template, or dogmatic framework of what is true orthodoxy, **then ** you might build a case as you have for something like the 27. You and other Protestants have implicitly done that.

On the other hand, one could chose one of the other, non-Magisterium Christianities, one could quote from their canons, their Christian councils, their Christian scholars, supported by their Christian traditions. You could build canons different from the 27 book one we are familiar with. I am not encouraging you to consult the non-Magisterium ancient Christian authorities. Thus far, you (rightly) have not used them in you arguments.
Since the Magisterium rejected them, Protestants reject those Christian scholars, also. There is no other reason for us, now, rejecting those ancient Christians and their canons.

I don’t need to persuade you to trust the ancient Magisterium guidance. You already do that, I just am trying to point that out.

 

[dawid]

Hi d,

Yes, and Christ and the apostles were all Jewish, as were the first church communities.

Blessings

Partially correct benhur!
The first apostles were Jews. The first Church communities included Gentiles hence the argument with the Judaizers.
The Christian Jews were cast out from the synagogues during the first century.

Kind regards

 

[susanlo]

With all due respect, to me you seem to be cherry-picking. You only choose authorities that were declared to be authoritative by some ancient Magisterium. You have not, thus far, quoted from any of the other Christian canons, Christian councils, Christian scholars declared heretical by the ancient Magisterium. **If **one assumes the Magisterium’s template, or dogmatic framework of what is true orthodoxy, **then ** you might build a case as you have for something like the 27. You and other Protestants have implicitly done that.

On the other hand, one could chose one of the other, non-Magisterium Christianities, one could quote from their canons, their Christian councils, their Christian scholars, supported by their Christian traditions. You could build canons different from the 27 book one we are familiar with. I am not encouraging you to consult the non-Magisterium ancient Christian authorities. Thus far, you (rightly) have not used them in you arguments.
Since the Magisterium rejected them, Protestants reject those Christian scholars, also. There is no other reason for us, now, rejecting those ancient Christians and their canons.

I don’t need to persuade you to trust the ancient Magisterium guidance. You already do that, I just am trying to point that out.

Which other sources are you referring to?

I think in Protestantism the selection of New Testament books was based on whether the writings have historical evidence of being written in the 1st century by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle, was accepted by the followers of Christ right away, whether it shows evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit and whether it is historically accurate and does not contradict other books.

I don’t know of any Gnostic gospels that meet these above qualifications. Are the Gnostics what you are referring to?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed “practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered.”(29) In addition to books that did not make it into the final New Testament canon but which had local canonicity (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel.(30)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), the most influential Biblical commentator of the first three centuries of Christianity, categorized books into three categories: those acknowledged by all the churches, the disputed books which some churches accepted, and the spurious books. The acknowledged books were the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. The disputed books were II Peter, II John, III John, James, and Jude.(42) He may have considered Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd canonical as well-he used the word “scripture” for them.

The ancient distrust of the Western Church for Hebrews continued. It was probably St. Athanasius’ influence during his stay in Rome (he fled there in 339) which helped convince many influential Western churchmen to accept Hebrews as canonical, although not necessarily Pauline. A diversity of opinion as to its authorship continued, but it was eventually accepted

Jerome (c. 342-420), the translator of the Vulgate and one of the greatest scholars of the early church, seemed to believe that Barnabas and the Shepherd were worthy of inclusion

The canon of the Syriac-speaking churches in the third century included the Diatessaron and the fourteen Pauline epistles. In the early fifth century, the Peshitta became the official text of Syriac-speaking churches. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four gospels. It contained the 22 books of our New Testament other than II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Peshitta is traditionally held to be the work of Rabulla, bishop of Edessa from 412-435. However, it probably built on work of the previous century.) The Nestorian church still uses this 22 book canon

The longest Biblical canon belongs to the Ethiopian church. Their Old Testament contains the Septuagintal books, Jubilees, the Ethiopic Enoch, IV Edras, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other books. Their New Testament includes the Shepherd and other books. Some manuscripts of the Ethiopian New Testament include the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian Canons which were written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340)

Thus, we see that producing the final form of the New Testament canon took a considerable period of time. It took still longer to produce near universal agreement. However, to this day, there exist ancient churches which have either never accepted certain books or which accept more than 27 books. The canon in its present form was not a self-evident fact, but the result of a prolonged struggle-we reap the fruits of other men’s labors.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx#253

Eusebius:

“Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name”

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, “against which the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. xvi. 18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed

(4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)

Not in agreement with Luther’s theology but the man studied the ECF’s and knew all the disputes that took place.

Luther on James’ epistle:

*Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,
*

Luther on Revelation::

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago;

**Luther on Jude:
**
*Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures *

 

[commenter]

I think in Protestantism the selection of New Testament books was based on whether the writings have historical evidence of being written in the 1st century

Estimated dates of original composition of the canonical, and non canonical books, vary widely even now; also disagreement in the 4th century. Some rejected books are now thought to be older than some accepted ones.

by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle,

the authorship of accepted books, and rejected books, is widely disputed. Some rejected books claim apostolic authorship.

was accepted by the followers of Christ right away,

Some rejected books were accepted by some followers of Christ right away. Some canonical ones, were not widely accepted.

whether it shows evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit

totally subjective, could apply to any book or to no book. Our understanding of the Holy Spirit is partly based on the canon the Magisterium selected. Without the Magisterium canon, how can one judge what may be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

and whether it is historically accurate

Some rejected books have no apparent inaccuracies.

and does not contradict other books.

Does not contradict WHICH other books? Your arguments presuppose the 27 book NT already canonized, and you are looking for criteria to show that administrative, hierarchical decision - the canon - was one of the plausible ones. One could use your criteria and put together a different, plausible canon.

But how do you know your criteria are applicable, at all? The **Magisterium **used these criteria, and others, to make their hierarchical decision, but how do you know those criteria are valid in the first place? God could inspire a book written in 500 AD, as easily as 80 AD. Some gnostic books may have been “accepted” by more Christians than the books selected by the Magisterium. None of the criteria justify the opening of the canon, and closing of the canon. Some agency, apart from any criteria, must have determined that.

In the future, more Christians may “accept” the Gospel of Mary than Paul’s epistles. Does popularity = acceptance, and make it Scripture in 2050? And certain Pauline epistles become non-Scripture? It’s already starting to happen on a tiny scale.

I am not saying the criteria you happened to choose are bad, just pointing out the choice of criteria, and interpretation of such, is highly subjective, and the NT canon points toward a powerful visible human agency, not a consensus, based on self evident criteria. A hierarchy, independent of popular opinion.

 

[susanlo]

Honestly, this whole debate really confuses me as to what we are actually discussing…

We seem to agree that most of the New Testament books were immediately and always recognized as Scripture throughout Christianity. A few books were questioned by a small group of Christians. Some later writings, like Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, were accepted by some early on, but rejected by the time of Eusebius. I believe Clement of Alexandria also had a few additional sources, but he was in a minority with this.

So by the writings of Eusebius and Athanasius in the 4th century we see that there was agreement by most Christians as to what Scripture was. This agreement came about by study of the texts and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then, decades later, at a council it was determined that only these accepted books are to be read in church as Scripture. However, elsewhere in the world (like Ethiopia) they used a different set of inspired Scripture, yet were able to continue to be Christians.

Fast forward 1000+ years, Martin Luther disagreed with many of the later additions to Christianity that had been created during this millennium. He then questioned the Scriptures that were accepted. He disputed some of the same books disputed in the early centuries. He decided to not accept the Deuterocanonical books, but did just so happen to end up agreeing with the 27 books of the New Testament. This decision in the 16th century came from study of the texts and guidance of the Holy Spirit just as it did in the first 400 years.

I believe we agree on all of the above.

But, why would the fact that Martin Luther (and those who came after him) agree on the apostolic character and inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament mean that: “If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.” and “If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)”

I see no logic in the above statements. Protestants disagree with Catholics on the Old Testament, but agree with Judaism. Should Protestants become Jewish? If Martin Luther would have accepted some of the texts used by the Ethiopian Church, would it be necessary for Protestants to join the Ethiopian Church?

Maybe it is because Protestants and non-Catholics don’t see the Apostles and early Christians as Roman Catholic Christians, but universal/catholic Christians. The authority of the Scripture came from Apostles and universal/catholic Christians, but not from Roman Catholic Magisterium. Maybe this is the point we keep misunderstanding each other on. That is a whole other topic, though.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

But, why would the fact that Martin Luther (and those who came after him) agree on the apostolic character and inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament mean that: “If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.” and “If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)”

I see no logic in the above statements. Protestants disagree with Catholics on the Old Testament, but agree with Judaism. Should Protestants become Jewish? If Martin Luther would have accepted some of the texts used by the Ethiopian Church, would it be necessary for Protestants to join the Ethiopian Church?

Maybe it is because Protestants and non-Catholics don’t see the Apostles and early Christians as Roman Catholic Christians, but universal/catholic Christians. The authority of the Scripture came from Apostles and universal/catholic Christians, but not from Roman Catholic Magisterium. Maybe this is the point we keep misunderstanding each other on. That is a whole other topic, though.

Catholics are in agreement with the early Jews who trusted and used the same Septuagint the apostles did which included the disputed books by protestants. Non-Catholic Christians are in agreement with post-ascended Jesus, Jews who denied our Lord, killed and persecuted Christians and changed their Canon and Mishnah.

I think the main point is, these “universal/catholic Christians” you speak of were under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church you deny. Therefore, you trust in a source outside the bible for authority in regards to what is inspired and what is not. And for those who claim the RCC is this derailed apostate faith, well, it presents quite a dilemma for them because the book they hold so dear came from this same body.

Not saying these are your particular feelings on the Church, but many protestants do feel this way unfortunately.

 

[commenter]

Honestly, this whole debate really confuses me as to what we are actually discussing…

We seem to agree that most of the New Testament books were immediately and always recognized as Scripture throughout Christianity. A few books were questioned by a small group of Christians. Some later writings, like Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, were accepted by some early on, but rejected by the time of Eusebius. I believe Clement of Alexandria also had a few additional sources, but he was in a minority with this.

So by the writings of Eusebius and Athanasius in the 4th century we see that there was agreement by most Christians as to what Scripture was. This agreement came about by study of the texts and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then, decades later, at a council it was determined that only these accepted books are to be read in church as Scripture. However, elsewhere in the world (like Ethiopia) they used a different set of inspired Scripture, yet were able to continue to be Christians.

Fast forward 1000+ years, Martin Luther disagreed with many of the later additions to Christianity that had been created during this millennium. He then questioned the Scriptures that were accepted. He disputed some of the same books disputed in the early centuries. He decided to not accept the Deuterocanonical books, but did just so happen to end up agreeing with the 27 books of the New Testament. This decision in the 16th century came from study of the texts and guidance of the Holy Spirit just as it did in the first 400 years.

I believe we agree on all of the above.

But, why would the fact that Martin Luther (and those who came after him) agree on the apostolic character and inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament mean that: “If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.” and “If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)”

I see no logic in the above statements. Protestants disagree with Catholics on the Old Testament, but agree with Judaism. Should Protestants become Jewish? If Martin Luther would have accepted some of the texts used by the Ethiopian Church, would it be necessary for Protestants to join the Ethiopian Church?

Maybe it is because Protestants and non-Catholics don’t see the Apostles and early Christians as Roman Catholic Christians, but universal/catholic Christians. The authority of the Scripture came from Apostles and universal/catholic Christians, but not from Roman Catholic Magisterium. Maybe this is the point we keep misunderstanding each other on. That is a whole other topic, though.

We are all backward engineering here. We see the (tiny) NT canon. We do know the biblical canon was opened(!); few books selected but most rejected; then closed(!). Soon, universally accepted in Christendom, and other Christianities defeated.

Does it look more like the finished product of a consensus, based on self-evident criteria? Or does it look like the product of a Magisterium?

 

[susanlo]

We are all backward engineering here. We see the (tiny) NT canon. We do know the biblical canon was opened(!); few books selected but most rejected; then closed(!). Soon, universally accepted in Christendom, and other Christianities defeated.

Does it look more like the finished product of a consensus, based on self-evident criteria? Or does it look like the product of a Magisterium?

I think that history shows it is a product of self-evident criteria recognized by a consensus.

 

[dawid]

Honestly, this whole debate really confuses me as to what we are actually discussing…

… He (Luther) decided to not accept the Deuterocanonical books, but did just so happen to end up agreeing with the 27 books of the New Testament. This decision in the 16th century came from study of the texts and guidance of the Holy Spirit just as it did in the first 400 years.

I believe we agree on all of the above.

How does the Holy Spirit guide in one way during the early Church and then the group that left the Catholic Church to protest, another way? Is it the same Holy Spirit?
The Jews changed their canon during the first century at the time they forbade Christian Jews from their synagogues. It appears that they removed the books that could support Jesus’ messiah-ship.

After the publishing of the Douay Rheims version of the Bible in English, the first version of the KJV appeared and included the Septuagint. The Puritans involved with the printing refused to include the Deuterocanonical books. Since then the protestant groups have used that version. Are you suggesting that the Puritans were guided by the Holy Spirit and the early Church not? There is now a movement among protestants to include the Deuterocanonical books.

Furthemore about two thirds of the statements of Jesus and His apostles appear to be based on these Deuterocanonical books.

Maybe it is because Protestants and non-Catholics don’t see the Apostles and early Christians as Roman Catholic Christians, but universal/catholic Christians. The authority of the Scripture came from Apostles and universal/catholic Christians, but not from Roman Catholic Magisterium. Maybe this is the point we keep misunderstanding each other on. That is a whole other topic, though.

It probably would be the stumbling block.

The early Church was indeed Catholic (universal) Christians according to Ignatius. The term "Roman Catholic is an innovation by the Anglicans.

As John Henry Newman stated: “To know the history of the early Church is to cease being Protestant!” He paid dearly for that. You may read his thought son the matter - a rather deep explanation for his painful decision to leave the Anglicans!

There is the issue of authority - originating from Moses through his successors.
Jesus also gave authority to Peter, His apostles and their successors. Can you show where that authority now lies?

 

[dawid]

I think that history shows it is a product of self-evident criteria recognized by a consensus.

There have been cases where the bishop of Rome did over-ride the consensus. That would be within his authority as handed down to Peter and his successors.
In this he would be guided by the holy Spirit.

 

[JMM1957]

Maybe it is because Protestants and non-Catholics don’t see the Apostles and early Christians as Roman Catholic Christians, but universal/catholic Christians.** The authority of the Scripture came from Apostles and universal/catholic Christians, but not from Roman Catholic Magisterium.** Maybe this is the point we keep misunderstanding each other on. That is a whole other topic, though.

Who are these universal/catholic Christians then? How did they approve the final canon of Scripture apart from the recognized historical councils?

 

[susanlo]

Furthemore about two thirds of the statements of Jesus and His apostles appear to be based on these Deuterocanonical books.

I was not aware of this. Do you have some examples?

It probably would be the stumbling block.

The early Church was indeed Catholic (universal) Christians according to Ignatius. The term "Roman Catholic is an innovation by the Anglicans.

As John Henry Newman stated: “To know the history of the early Church is to cease being Protestant!” He paid dearly for that. You may read his thought son the matter - a rather deep explanation for his painful decision to leave the Anglicans!

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” - John Henry Newman

He spoke of Development of Doctrine which was how things evolved and changed over the centuries. As I understand it, this is different from: 1st century Christians are exactly identical to modern Roman Catholics. It is about how things slowly developed and changed from a simple 1st century Christianity to all of the complex doctrines that are present today.

There is the issue of authority - originating from Moses through his successors.
Jesus also gave authority to Peter, His apostles and their successors. Can you show where that authority now lies?

The authority has always been with God. The Holy Spirit reveals necessary truths to believers through God’s word.

 

[susanlo]

Who are these universal/catholic Christians then? How did they approve the final canon of Scripture apart from the recognized historical councils?

Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, James and Jude.

They clearly didn’t think a council was necessary or they would have had one.

 

[JMM1957]

Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, James and Jude.

They clearly didn’t think a council was necessary or they would have had one.

Do you think they actually thought that they were writing inspired Scripture when they wrote their gospels and letters?

 

[susanlo]

Do you think they actually thought that they were writing inspired Scripture when they wrote their gospels and letters?

How could they have not known?

 

[rcwitness]

Yes. I don’t think it was necessary.
Do you think without a decree of a council that the Scriptires that had been preserved and taught from for over 300 years would have ceased to exist at some point in time?

The necessity of affirming a Canon was not for the early communities who actually received certain writings and we’re locally affirmed by their leaders at that point in time. The point was that, after the passing of time and the distance from Apostolic times grew larger, the direct knowledge of the writings became less known.

When it became a desire to ascertain all Sacred Scripture, local leaders and communities had to rely on a universal authority to confirm the writing that they were not familiar with, since not all communities had all of the writings and the knowledge of their origins.

You mention Eusibius. He regarded Apostolic Succession as crucial to affirming these kind of matters. It was not just any scholar or group of Christians.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The point was that, after the passing of time and the distance from Apostolic times grew larger, the direct knowledge of the writings became less known.
.

The heretics that broke off from the Church and the gnostics did not help in this regard. They were there to cause confusion, and they did a very good job of it.

Thankfully we had a authoritative Church to keep the ship on the right path and guard the Word of God with Sacred Tradition and the magisterium.