Determination of the canon of the NT

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have not read this entire thread, but even if it were to be admitted that the Catholic Church determined the canon of the New Testament this does not mean that all decisions of the Catholic Church are correct. It does not follow that if you get one thing right that you get all things right.

If I get 100% in a mathematics exam, that does not mean that I can never make a mathematical mistake.
This seems to be a common complaint among Protestants of all stripes. They reduce the church down to a mere human institution that is exactly like all other human institutions – fallible. Catholics obviously believe that the Holy Spirit not only guides the Church, but protects it from teaching any errors when it comes to faith and morals. This is in direct opposition to Protestants that believe the church has no such guarantee and at best we have really educated guesses when it comes to things like faith and morals.

ChadS
 
The Catholic Church Determined the Canon of Scripture.
Two of the fathers you quote do not accept the canon as given by the Catholic Church, albeit they do not agree with the Protestant canon either.
Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
**Cyril of Jerusalem **(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4 Paragraphs 35
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number;,their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith and Tobit,… But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.
Athanasius (Festal Letters, Number 39)
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

The statements of Jerome with respect to the canon are well known and I will not repeat them here. However I will add the view of a later father, well after the local councils that are said to have determined the canon.
Observe, further , that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament…And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia , or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave , Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.
John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17)
newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Finally from Pope Gregory the Great not dealing with the whole Old Testament but indicating 1 Maccabees is not canonical.
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.
Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34)
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

Did all these doctors of the church, particulairly those after the local councils get wrong what had supposedly been established by the Church?
 
Two of the fathers you quote do not accept the canon as given by the Catholic Church, albeit they do not agree with the Protestant canon either.

**Cyril of Jerusalem **(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4 Paragraphs 35
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

Athanasius (Festal Letters, Number 39)
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

The statements of Jerome with respect to the canon are well known and I will not repeat them here. However I will add the view of a later father, well after the local councils that are said to have determined the canon.

John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17)
newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Finally from Pope Gregory the Great not dealing with the whole Old Testament but indicating 1 Maccabees is not canonical.

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34)
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

Did all these doctors of the church, particulairly those after the local councils get wrong what had supposedly been established by the Church?
Okay…and? Protestants are so quick to draw by saying: See,see this chruch father disagreed with the canon. So what,individuals do not make the final decision,the entire church does with its bishops. Does not matter one disagrees,either one accepts it or rejects it. No different with many other doctrines,the Arians did not agree with Christ two natures,did the church cave-in to them? Nope! God is about the Truth,not opinions which can vary.
 
Okay…and? Protestants are so quick to draw by saying: See,see this chruch father disagreed with the canon. So what,individuals do not make the final decision,the entire church does with its bishops. Does not matter one disagrees,either one accepts it or rejects it. No different with many other doctrines,the Arians did not agree with Christ two natures,did the church cave-in to them? Nope! God is about the Truth,not opinions which can vary.
The point is that these fathesr were a) unaware of what the Church or Tradition had supposed defined; b) rejected what the Church taught;or c} did not feel that any definition that may have been made was binding. Yet these men have been named saints and doctors of the Church, and one was even a Pope. Can that claim be made for Arius? How can these men have been so honoured by the Church if they did not agree with a supposedly infallible definition by the Church?
 
P101, could you elaborate a bit more regarding post 108? 🙂
Ha Ha! Now how did I KNOW you were going to ask that? I wish I had time; but if you PM me a reminder on Sat night - this week end; I will be glad to post something on Sunday…
 
Ha Ha! Now how did I KNOW you were going to ask that? I wish I had time; but if you PM me a reminder on Sat night - this week end; I will be glad to post something on Sunday…
It seems the quick translation of this post is you have no fuller understanding
 
Hi, P101,

Yes, I think the tone of respect is most important. Of couse, as you saw, some good-natured teasing has a place, too. 😃

I certainly would not argue with the time frame you have set for yourself: “enos”! Now, this is just an idea, but such a time frame could be shortened to hmmmmmm maybe something within a lifetime… if you changed your approach.

For example, while there is a lot of history in the Bible - it really isn’t a history book. Using it as such will automatically put you in the position of realizing it does not tell you how the Bible actually arrived in its current form. And, while we can say, without fear of contradiction, that it was written with God as the Principal Author using the hand of man - God did not present the ‘bound version’ from His Divine Printing Press as a First Edition.

Maybe this type of change would be helpful as you explore the topic. 🙂

God bless
Yes; that’s right! You just never know! I have never really gotten into details and evidence re church history, for a reason though. Most of my posts on this subject have just been throwing out the ideas, without really getting into the evidence stage so much. And this is for a reason. I am working on a study to try illustrating my ideas from the Bible. That is going to take eons. And more importantly, I am just exploring Roman Catholic ideas about the subject. It is not just the content of your information I am looking at; it is the manner in which same is offered. The spirit of the message counts for more than the message; at times. I do believe that it is possible for people to see in our exchanges, Christian respect, and support of one another; despite our sometimes sharp disagreements! Time will reveal God’s will in this and other matters we have/will have under consideration here at CAF! 👍
 
Many thanks to Joe and Servant for the effort. I posted earlier, page five and feel ignored for lack of any response countering my thoughts. Perhaps they were just not deep enough for this forum. I truly hope we can all realize that the time we spend pursuing the word of God can be better spent glorifying God in private or community prayer. I feel, as a Catholic that these forums are really not the best way to convince Protestants that God dwells among us at every CC, in nearly every settlement on earth. The Rosary is the best tool for the conversion of those who choose not to “walk with Jesus” for his sayings are hard. The Church is inclusive of all whom are baptized in the Spirit, and all are trusted, by Jesus, to the holder of the keys to the kingdom. So were all (the baptized) truly Universal Christians, that is Catholics whether you like it or not. If God wanted us to argue over the true canon of Holy Scripture he would of given us the bible through his sons ministry, that the Church would be an outgrowth of the book. Rather he gave us the Church built on Peter which determined the canon many of you seem to doubt. This is really easy stuff, my five year old gets it. The canon was spread, preached, lived before it was ever recorded on parchment or hide because God wants you to stay in the flock of the see of Peter. Allow yourselves to be fed by “Peter” as Jesus himself instructed you to do. It cost Jesus his life to give us his Body and Blood. Each day stray from the CC, you miss out on the sacrifice of God’s Son, intended for you! Lose Your Life doubters, and you will find it in Christ Jesus. I love you all!!!
Thanks Gal219: I read your original post, and posted myself. – A couple of still stones in a tumbling brook! The thread is interesting and good clean fun, but it is not likely to draw anyone to the truth. Come to think of it, I cannot think of anyone I know who came to Christ through the scriptures alone. There must be legions of them, but it is Christian witness which seems to be central to conversion. Good thread though!

I recently read Roy Schoeman’s “Salvation is from the Jews” (brilliant book). He brings to attention the inadvertant witness to Christ in the Talmud and Jewish traditions. Now that is all very true, and in no Christian canon. Except, perhaps, for Messianic Jews.

Today we celebrate the conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle. As Saul, he had read and taken to heart all the scriptures, and how convinced he was in his wrongness!

May the Lord throw me from my assuredness, and give me the truth in my blindness.

Columba.
 
Okeydoke…👍
How come you didn’t remind me Joe?

I have a related question about the Bible; I hope it is alright to ask it here?

I was wondering about where online I could read The Confraternity Bible? Does anyone know about this Bible, and can you offer any opinions on it, in addition to where I could read it?
 
How come you didn’t remind me Joe?

I have a related question about the Bible; I hope it is alright to ask it here?

I was wondering about where online I could read The Confraternity Bible? Does anyone know about this Bible, and can you offer any opinions on it, in addition to where I could read it?
Oops, I forgot to PM you…Check out the following thread regarding the Confraternity Bible; it looks like they are discussing it there.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=129026
 
Alas, the thread has been closed for sometime Joe. Nothing in it to lead me to anything online.

That thread however, does raise some interesting questions re determination of the canon.
 
joe370;:
How many protestant churches existed prior to the 16th reformation?
How many Christians were murdered by Catholic Priests and Bishops, prior to the 16th century? When you can answer that question, you’ll have the answer to your question.

jonathon
 
Hi, there Jblake,

I do not not know how many Christians were murdered by Catholic Priests and Bishops prior to the 16th Century. Would you please tell me and supply a reference?

To the best of my knowledge there were NO Protestant churches in existance prior to the 16th Century. I really do not think there is a cause and effect relationship between these two sets of variables - do you?

Thank you.
How many Christians were murdered by Catholic Priests and Bishops, prior to the 16th century? When you can answer that question, you’ll have the answer to your question.

jonathon
 
Hi, Simspt,

You bring up and interesting concept… and it honestly requires more balancing than I am capable of doing! 😃 For example:

Christ told His Apostles: (Luke 11:23) “He who is not with us is against us…” Now to be with Christ means that we believe what He told us, and we follow His Commands. And, while this may seem straight forward … it gets bogged down in how all the various denominations interpret the Scriptures we share in common. Like the

1.) requirement that we be baptized (Matthew 28:19-20) yet some preach that baptism is optional and that we are saved by faith alone, effectively denying the Word of God

2,) requriement that we eat the Flesh of Christ to have life in us (John 6:53) yet some preach that this is but a mere symbol that Christ did not mean this literally.

3.) requirement that we confess our sins to the people that Christ delegated the Power to Forgive Sin to (the Apostles and their successors) (John 20:23) yes some preach that this is not necessary - one can go directly to God for forgiveness.

God judges us by the lights we are working with in our life. And, while I do not think you meant your statement in a relativistic sense (one church is as good as antoehr church so let’s all get along), I am left wondering. It would appear to me better to preach some version of Christ than not have Christ preached at all - but, this may be just judging as man judges and not as God judges.

I am honestly at a loss on this - and the three examples I have given are form the Canon of the NT we are all in agreement with. We are seeing some freely interpret Christ as they freely interpret Scripture - and, this may be the single biggest reason why there is such contradictions between the various groups preaching Christ.

God bless

I can not deny what you said, at least from what I have seen. The Grace of God works in mysterious ways - and, it would certainly appear to me that there are many Protestant denominations that preach Christ and Him crucified, as St. Paul would say. But, maybe Christ was serious in what He said in the three examples I gave you above.
I agree but don’t forget that for centuries the Protestants have led millions of Christians to grace and salvation through the preaching of the Word of God and pastoral ministry.
 
How many Christians were murdered by Catholic Priests and Bishops, prior to the 16th century? When you can answer that question, you’ll have the answer to your question.

jonathon
Start a thread and provide the answer and engage in a dialogue, regarding your answer, but please, regarding this thread, stick to the OP?
 
How many Christians were murdered by Catholic Priests and Bishops, prior to the 16th century? When you can answer that question, you’ll have the answer to your question.

jonathon
Quite true…We could go back even just to April, 1529 to a certain disputation held at the monastery of Flensburg and see where the person concerned was expelled…notice he didn’t leave…Hoffman was called the Father of the Dutch Evangelicals, and one of the several things this and many previous histories show is that the Roman Catholic mantra about them being the “first church” is very dubious and questionable at best. There were always other churches - other religions, and a constant string of arrests, torture and butchery by the professing “first church” just because they were not giving in to the dogma being forced at them. Hoffman died in prison. Who’s fault was that? Who was behind his arrests? Blaming it on the secular government of the time would be a lie at best.

The reason I bring this up is because it was already commented on; and I am wondering how people who do such things to other Christians can possibly “write the Bible” or “determine what is canon?”

There are so many other incidents in history which can be cited, and we can go back as far as one wants. History just keeps repeating itself.

Besides; other churches had (name removed by moderator)ut and influence as to what was canon. It was never just one denomination that did that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top