Determination of the canon of the NT

[joe370]

Confused! Non-Catholics who have studied the origins of scripture, accept the decisions of of the various catholic councils that eventually finalized the NT canon, but reject the decisions of those very same councils, regarding the canon of the OT.

Why admit that the leaders of the CC, by infallible decision, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the NT and then reject the canon of the OT, which was decided by the same bishops at the same council?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Confused! Non-Catholics who have studied the origins of scripture, accept the decisions of of the various catholic councils that eventually finalized the NT canon, but reject the decisions of those very same councils, regarding the canon of the OT.

Why admit that the leaders of the CC, by infallible decision, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the NT and then reject the canon of the OT, which was decided by the same bishops at the same council?

Actually, the non sequitur here is that the other churches somehow “accepted” the decisions of the Latinate church when they probably didn’t even know that such decisions had been made—because they weren’t invited to participate in them. Because each church had/has different biblical canons, it’s clear they each developed their own biblical canon. Indeed the fact that each has the same NT is remarkable/miraculous, but I don’t think you have any evidence that this agreement was somehow the result of the synods held in the Western Church.

 

[joe370]

Actually, the non sequitur here is that the other churches somehow “accepted” the decisions of the Latinate church when they probably didn’t even know that such decisions had been made—because they weren’t invited to participate in them. Because each church had/has different biblical canons, it’s clear they each developed their own biblical canon. Indeed the fact that each has the same NT is remarkable/miraculous, but I don’t think you have any evidence that this agreement was somehow the result of the synods held in the Western Church.

Whoever had the authority to recognize what should be included in the New Testament and what should not be included in the New Testament, certainly, in my mind, has the same right regarding what should be included in the Old Testament, and what shouldn’t.

Who might that be friend???

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Whoever had the authority to recognize what should be included in the New Testament and what should not be included in the New Testament, certainly, in my mind, has the same right regarding what should be included in the Old Testament, and what shouldn’t.

Who might that be friend???

Apparently, no one—because the biblical canons differ among the churches, yet this was never a point of schism–or even the slightest contention as near as I can tell.

 

[joe370]

Apparently, no one—because the biblical canons differ among the churches, yet this was never a point of schism–or even the slightest contention as near as I can tell.

Wow…Interesting perspective! If I believed that, then I would wonder if I really had the authentic word of God. Do you wonder, considering the fact that you seem to believe that no one (including Jesus’ church) - had the authority to determine the canon of scripture, which has a few possible dangerous implications?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370
Whoever had the authority to recognize what should be included in the New Testament and what should not be included in the New Testament, certainly, in my mind, has the same right regarding what should be included in the Old Testament, and what shouldn’t.

Who might that be friend???

Apparently, no one—because the biblical canons differ among the churches, yet this was never a point of schism–or even the slightest contention as near as I can tell.

No one? So would you apply the same to other doctrines? The Trinity? Arians and Semi-Arians rejected the Trinity,which equates into the fact no church truly had any authority,since the Arians rejected the doctrine? The fact there exist different views or flat out rejection of certain or any specific doctrines does not mean the church Christ founded had no such authority.If that is the case,we are all doomed and Jesus talked a bunch of hype and nothing more.

 

[JonNC]

Confused! Non-Catholics who have studied the origins of scripture, accept the decisions of of the various catholic councils that eventually finalized the NT canon, but reject the decisions of those very same councils, regarding the canon of the OT.

Why admit that the leaders of the CC, by infallible decision, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the NT and then reject the canon of the OT, which was decided by the same bishops at the same council?

I would dispute that any truly ecumenical council determined the OT canon. That didn’t happen until Trent for Catholics, and Trent, lacking the other patriarchs, is not truly ecumenical.

What is more, Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus, disputed the OT canon.

Cajetan: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus."

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No one? So would you apply the same to other doctrines? The Trinity? Arians and Semi-Arians rejected the Trinity,which equates into the fact no church truly had any authority,since the Arians rejected the doctrine? The fact there exist different views or flat out rejection of certain or any specific doctrines does not mean the church Christ founded had no such authority.If that is the case,we are all doomed and Jesus talked a bunch of hype and nothing more.

I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison.

 

[Nicea325]

I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison.

Not at all. I think it is you who is not reacting enough to see the point. And regardless that Nicea 325 ratified the Trinity,the fact remains,the Arians rejected the doctrine for centuries. The Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons reject it as today. Does it make it null simply because they reject it?

If it is not a valid comparison,then how do you or I or anyone for that matter,even know what we believe is canonical scripture is truly scripture canonical? Should the NT have 35 books? Maybe 50?

The Trinity and canon are both very valid comparisons and related.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Not at all. I think it is you who is not reacting enough to see the point. And regardless that Nicea 325 ratified the Trinity,the fact remains,the Arians rejected the doctrine for centuries. The Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons reject it as today. Does it make it null simply because they reject it?

If it is not a valid comparison,then how do you or I or anyone for that matter,even know what we believe is canonical scripture is truly scripture canonical? Should the NT have 35 books? Maybe 50?

The Trinity and canon are both very valid comparisons and related.

It’s obvious you’re not understanding my point, but I’ll give it one more go. (Generally speaking, I don’t much appreciate what comes across as a shrill tone to your responses, so that’s why I often don’t reply to your posts–just FYI.)

But anyway. The way I see it as that anything which has been agreed upon by the universal church should, be accepted. Arianism was rejected by a legitimate ecumenical council. Therefore, JWs and Mormons are outside the pale of Christianity, even though they are certainly free to believe whatever they want. It’s just something other than Christianity.

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

No clear, universal consensus has ever been reached on the canon of the OT, nor do I think there ever will be one. Therefore, the very ancient Tradition accepted by fiat (including the fiat of the Roman Catholic Church) is that each church can have their own. At most, one could argue that it’s still an open question.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison.

I must admit, I did not foresee this thread heading in this direction when I started it. Since the same does not exist with the biblical canon, then there is a chance that those 27 books might not all be the authentic word of God, just as, according to you, no one can authoritatively claim to have access to the authentic OT. Dave, is that a logical conclusion?

I just caught your last post: “A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.”

When was this ecumenical and universal consensus reached and by whom?

 

[Columba_Tom]

I know nothing about how groups justify their Biblical canons. But when there is doubt over a passage or its translation, I am pleased to be able to turn to the Septuagint, translated long before the Messiah was born at Bethlehem. We can safely say that it is free from prejudice. What more should we need? If we spurn the Law and the Prophets, why would we believe even if someone came back from the dead for us?

The Apocrypha offer added blessings to those of us who read them. But without them, there is still plenty. What would Our Lord have needed? A good deal less, and with twelve baskets of scraps left over.

Columba.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Confused! Non-Catholics who have studied the origins of scripture, accept the decisions of of the various catholic councils that eventually finalized the NT canon, but reject the decisions of those very same councils, regarding the canon of the OT.

Why admit that the leaders of the CC, by infallible decision, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the NT and then reject the canon of the OT, which was decided by the same bishops at the same council?

The scriptures were committed to the church. They are scripture because God is their author.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, there does seem to be some credence to that statement, if one does not believe that the CC is the church of Matthew 16, but you know how I feel about that brother. Thanks for the feedback.

I would dispute that any truly ecumenical council determined the OT canon. That didn’t happen until Trent for Catholics, and Trent, lacking the other patriarchs, is not truly ecumenical.

What is more, Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus, disputed the OT canon.

Cajetan: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus."

Jon

 

[joe370]

The scriptures were committed to the church. They are scripture because God is their author.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not sure how anyone can argue that the canon of the OT was ever the same for everyone. The Catholic Church, the EO, and I think the OO all have slightly different canons, and no one ever had a problem with that. The Protestants later within their own grouping decided on a very conservative view of the canon. The edges have always been fuzzy on this question, never sharply defined.

 

[kingal86]

Apparently, no one—because the biblical canons differ among the churches, yet this was never a point of schism–or even the slightest contention as near as I can tell.

I’ve never heard of the canon of the NT differing between churches (at least mainstream ones)…

 

[Nicea325]

It’s obvious you’re not understanding my point, but I’ll give it one more go. (Generally speaking, I don’t much appreciate what comes across as a shrill tone to your responses, so that’s why I often don’t reply to your posts–just FYI.)

But anyway. The way I see it as that anything which has been agreed upon by the universal church should, be accepted. Arianism was rejected by a legitimate ecumenical council. Therefore, JWs and Mormons are outside the pale of Christianity, even though they are certainly free to believe whatever they want. It’s just something other than Christianity.

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

No clear, universal consensus has ever been reached on the canon of the OT, nor do I think there ever will be one. Therefore, the very ancient Tradition accepted by fiat (including the fiat of the Roman Catholic Church) is that each church can have their own. At most, one could argue that it’s still an open question.

Sorry,but I am not trying to be mean,so if I come across in such a tone,I am sorry. Actually Dave I understand your point;however,but it seems you are avoiding a vital question:

Then how do you or I or anyone for that matter,even know what we believe is canonical scripture is truly canonical? Should the NT have 35 books? Maybe 50?

You seem to base it on the fact that since it is not ecumenical it is questionable. Thus,since you base your argument around ecumenical councils,why did you say the following:

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

What ecumenical council ratified it? Which council of 21 ecumenical councils ratified it as canonical?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hey Dave…

I must admit, I did not foresee this thread heading in this direction when I started it. Since the same does not exist with the biblical canon, then there is a chance that those 27 books might not all be the authentic word of God, just as, according to you, no one can authoritatively claim to have access to the authentic OT. Dave, is that a logical conclusion?

I just caught your last post: “A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.”

When was this ecumenical and universal consensus reached and by whom?

I don’t think these are necessarily the conclusions, so I’ll restate. Since the New Testament as presently constituted has been historically accepted by all the churches, then I think its safe to proclaim that these books are the authentic word of God. Since there has never been an ecumenical council to discuss the content of the NT it seems that this consensus was reached organically and independently–which at least to me further testifies further to the legitimacy of the conclusion.

But I agree that no one can claim to have THE definitive list of the books of the Old Testament because the universal church has never come to a consensus on this issue–and these differences remain to this day. However, these difference have never been a contributing source of schism within and among the churches until the 16th century.

 

[ChadS]

Attempts by Protestants to justify their rejection 500 years ago of the Apocrypha are usually all over the place. Some will say it wasn’t finally codified until Trent, others will mention that St. Jerome at various times didn’t consider them scripture (although there were times when Jerome did quote them as scripture). However, the one that is the favorite fall back and the one that many of the reformers used themselves is that these books weren’t being used by the Jews in Palestine around or shortly after the time of Jesus.

This last one strikes me as the weakest and most problematic of all the reasons. The Christian expulsion from the synagogues happened very early on and the Jews did all they could to distance themselves from the Christian movement. The Jews rejected the entire New Testament as being scripture and they are still waiting for the messiah. Yet, despite these problems with the Christian religion many Protestants willing accept their determination of the Old Testament canon.

I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t work through the Jews, but it also seems likely to me that the Jews erroneously rejected works that were scripture and only considered them pious but not scripture. As a Catholic I believe the Holy Spirit is working in the church, especially in the Catholic Church and will protect her from all error. Therefore, in matters of faith and morals she couldn’t promulgate a falsehood, especially in something as critical as Holy Writ.

ChadS