Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[JonNC]

Goodness, don’t put such words in my mouth! I’m merely answering the OPs question in terms of the answers I have heard amongst a certain type of protestant. I certainly don’t AGREE with their (or Luther’s) reasoning. I’m just explaining what they they believe and how they justify / defend it.

I’m not aware of Luther ever being dogmatic about his NT book concerns the way he eventually got about his OT “cuts”. It’s one thing to have difficulties, quite another to stubbornly cling to them. I’m not sure you should equate Luther’s OT and NT issues.

Thank you, manualman, for your levelled response here. I think you have hit the nail on the head about Luther’s views of the NT. And considering that no where in the Lutheran confessions are the D-C’s omitted from scripture (there is no statement regarding the canon of scripture at all), my sense is that the later Lutheran reformers didn’t take Luther’s stand on them as being unqualified, either.

It seems to me it is not an issue of, “Luther threw books out”, or “Catholics added books.”
There is much more to the history than we often talk about.

Jon

 

[collegeprof]

Most, protestant or Catholic, also have no idea that the gospels are NOT written by the person whose name appears there. the Gospel of Paul is not written my Paul. Matthew not written by Matthew, etc.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I grew up just assuming the Bible was always there. It never occurred to me there was a process by which the Scriptures were chosen and compiled to form the Bible.

 

[Newsy]

Most, protestant or Catholic, also have no idea that the gospels are NOT written by the person whose name appears there. the Gospel of Paul is not written my Paul. Matthew not written by Matthew, etc.

OK, where is the Gospel of Paul located? I must be short one book in all of my Bibles?!?!

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Most, protestant or Catholic, also have no idea that the gospels are NOT written by the person whose name appears there. the Gospel of Paul is not written my Paul. Matthew not written by Matthew, etc.

First of all - the** ENTIRE **bible was written by the Holy Spirit.
The men who copied it down were inspired by that same Holy Spirit - the true author of Scripture.

The names attributed to the Books of the New Testament are*** indeed ***those who physically wrote them.

As for the Gospel of Paul - what are you talking about?

 

[Publisher]

Most, protestant or Catholic, also have no idea that the gospels are NOT written by the person whose name appears there. the Gospel of Paul is not written my Paul. Matthew not written by Matthew, etc.

It is doubful that ANY of the original 12 wrote any of what is compled in the NT. Paul was not an orginal apostle…but called later. Not all the letters that bear his name are authentic Pauline letters…Paul MAY be the only one we actually know penned books in our Bibles…while the books of both OT and NT bear names of “authors”…it is doubful any are actually THE authors of the book which bears his name.

“Gospel According to Paul” is a great book…I’m reading it now, it’s by Robin G. Jones…there is no “Gospel of Paul” in apocryphal writings that I am aware of.

 

[SteveVH]

First of all - the** ENTIRE **bible was written by the Holy Spirit.
The men who copied it down were inspired by that same Holy Spirit - the true author of Scripture.

The names attributed to the Books of the New Testament are*** indeed ***those who physically wrote them.

As for the Gospel of Paul - what are you talking about?

Just a clarification. The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Sacred Scripture, He did not write it. It is not as if those who wrote it down were just taking dictation. Their writings contained aspects of their personalities, their cultures and all other matters unique to individuals. All of these things are taken into account when interpreting scripture. It is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however, that guarantees the truth contained in these writings.

This is the entire reason that the whole Christian world had better hope that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit. It is difficult at best to sort out all of the writings that were circulating at that time by whether or not they seem inspired. I can’t tell by reading Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, and comparing it to any of the other epistles, which is inspired and which is not. That was the duty and obligation of the Church who alone had the authority, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to determine what was indeed inspired, as opposed to that which may be inspiring.

 

[GKC]

It is doubful that ANY of the original 12 wrote any of what is compled in the NT. Paul was not an orginal apostle…but called later. Not all the letters that bear his name are authentic Pauline letters…Paul MAY be the only one we actually know penned books in our Bibles…while the books of both OT and NT bear names of “authors”…it is doubful any are actually THE authors of the book which bears his name.

“Gospel According to Paul” is a great book…I’m reading it now, it’s by Robin G. Jones…there is no “Gospel of Paul” in apocryphal writings that I am aware of.

Though there is, of course, an apocryphal ACTS of Paul.

GKC

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Just a clarification. The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Sacred Scripture, He did not write it. It is not as if those who wrote it down were just taking dictation. Their writings contained aspects of their personalities, their cultures and all other matters unique to individuals. All of these things are taken into account when interpreting scripture. It is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however, that guarantees the truth contained in these writings.

This is the entire reason that the whole Christian world had better hope that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit. It is difficult at best to sort out all of the writings that were circulating at that time by whether or not they seem inspired. I can’t tell by reading Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, and comparing it to any of the other epistles, which is inspired and which is not. That was the duty and obligation of the Church who alone had the authority, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to determine what was indeed inspired, as opposed to that which may be inspiring.

Actually, although I could have worded it better - GOD is the author of Scripture:
CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

When I say, “wrote”, I probably should have said, “authored”.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, although I could have worded it better - GOD is the author of Scripture:
CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

When I say, “wrote”, I probably should have said, “authored”.

Yeah, I knew what you meant. Just wanted to make sure others did as well.

But that is really the point, isn’t it? How can anyone determine what is inspired and what is not? I used Clements Letter to the Corinthians as an example because it sounds as inspired as any of Pauls writings. Man, on his own, could never have made that determination. It follows then, that all Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, must place their hope in the fact that the Catholic Church made its determination through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And if it did, what does this say about those who choose to believe in the inspired nature of the Bible, yet reject the Catholic Church’s authority to interpret the meaning it contains?

 

[Publisher]

Though there is, of course, an apocryphal ACTS of Paul.

GKC

As well as the “Acts of Paul and Thecla”…

 

[GKC]

As well as the “Acts of Paul and Thecla”…

If I remember my Montague Rhodes James/ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT, James accounts that as a subset of the ACTS. And lumps in some minor bits and pieces, in addition.

I grew up on James (including his unmatched ghost stories), but can’t lay my hands on his ANT, right now.

GKC

 

[Publisher]

If I remember my Montague Rhodes James/ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT, James accounts that as a subset of the ACTS. And lumps in some minor bits and pieces, in addition.

I grew up on James (including his unmatched ghost stories), but can’t lay my hands on his ANT, right now.

GKC

I have an older hard bound copy of the “Apocryphal New Testament”…it’s bound in black with gold edging…I also have the “Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden”.

 

[GKC]

I have an older hard bound copy of the “Apocryphal New Testament”…it’s bound in black with gold edging…I also have the “Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden”.

I’ll bet a nickle that’s the same James I have. It was my father’s.

And, somewhere, is my copy of LOST BOOKS. Lost book, indeed.

GKC

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

If Catholics and Protestants knew the history of Christianity and the history of the Bible, there would be fewer Protestants and many more Catholics.

Jim Dandy

Was it not Cardinal Newman that stated "To be deep in history is to cease being a protestant!
What gets me is how bible only churches overlook sooo much of the bible!
It looks like ideology is far more important than the TRUTH!

Matthew

 

[Azurestone]

My closest Lutheran friends and I enjoy scripture study that includes some of the gnostic scriptures. Maybe we’re different or something, but all sources of knowledge can be used to grow closer to God.

False.

The only thing that draws you closer to God is Truth. Heresy drives you away from God.

 

[kylemccloughan]

In all the years I spent as a ‘Bible-believing’ Southern Baptist, I was never taught where we got the Bible – not in Sunday School, nor was it ever mentioned in any sermon. I guess I just thought the Bible fell out of heaven in the red letter edition. It never occurred to me to ask. “It came from God,” was all I knew.

Am I the exception? Are Protestants usually taught where we got the Bible? If not, why not? Or is the answer too obvious?

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Jim Dandy

The actual compliation of the Scriptures (canon) was done by councils that actually became part of the Orthodox church. But what I don’t understand is how today, the Catholic and the Orthodox church have different canonized books. They were both one church at the time the Bible was compiled.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jon, thank you for your responses to my concerns about Luther and the Bible. You’re a patient and kind man. I’ve read the Lutheran defense of Luther’s actions several times. This is from a Lutheran website:
sothl.com/2011/01/13/the-apocrypha-early-church-councils-and-martin-luther/

QUOTE

Luther (1480-1546)
During his lifetime, Luther translated the Bible into German. His translation did include the Apocrypha; so Luther did not reject the Apocrypha. What Luther did that was novel was his placement of the Apocrypha: he placed them between the two testaments. This tradition of placing the Apocrypha between the two testaments helped set in place two views of thought:

[Luther was the first to start this “tradition.”]

Positive: The Apocrypha was a secondary category of books within the Bible. This was nothing new, and may, in truth, have helped better understand the Apocrypha as deuterocanon and/or anagignoskomena.

[Deuterocanon was a word employed for the first time in the 16th century, which simply means ‘accepted later than other writings’. There are not “two canons” – all biblical writings were canonized at the same time, in the same councils, and affirmed by the reigning popes. There has never been a different canon. The NT has a “deuterocanon” also.]

Negative: By putting all the Apocrypha together instead of interspersing them as before, Luther helped set up a churchly culture that could later more-easily remove the Apocrypha altogether from the Bible. And this largely took place in the Bibles Protestant used in the 1800s (1900s for German Lutherans who were transitioning to English).

Luther’s most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible:** “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”**
END QUOTE (emphasis mine)

Luther took the writings from their rightful places among the Scriptures, where they had been for centuries, and put them in an appendix betweeen the OT and the NT in his German translation of the Bible (1534). He left the pages unnumbered so it would be clear to readers that these writings were not Scripture. He also wrote prefaces for these books. His summary statement is indicated above in red.

Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Writings that are “not held equal to the Scriptures” are not the inspired Word of God. To me, it couldn’t be clearer. Writings that are “useful and good to read” are not essential and not Scripture. Luther declared it so.

I have never said Luther removed these so-called “apocryphal” writings from the Bible. I do say he removed them from the canon. The KJV also placed them in an appendix in imitation of Luther. The books were removed completely from the Protestant Bible in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society. There were no complaints from the Protestant world which, having been taught by Luther, didn’t consider them Scripture anyway.

Thanks for reading this.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Jim Dandy originally wrote:**Protestants of many denominations use these same epithets and quote the same Scriptures against the Church to this day. In additon, Luther desecrated the original Bible. Protestant Bibles are still incomplete. All of this has endured for 500 years and will probably endure until the end of time.

Jon NC replied:

Jim, honestly, this appears more emotional than factual.

Jon, I’m referring here to Luther’s interpretation of Revelation, making the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Antichrist. This is frequently slung at Catholics – mainly by Fundamentalists, of whom there are many. Most don’t know the source, but they use it nevertheless. As I’ve said, it was fed to me from infancy to young adulthood.
Some posters on this thread report the same experience. I don’t think it will ever die.

Many Catholics don’t know the source, either.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Jon NC wrote:**Let me ask you, why did Rome cut 1 Esdras, and 3 and 4 Mac out of the Bible?

Jon, those writings were not canonized.

From the same Lutheran website as my post #38:

QUOTE

Church Councils, Canonization, and the Apocrypha

Today, what books make up the New Testament books in the Bible go back to the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 AD. However, that same council also listed the Old Testament books of the Bible. In Canon 24, the council wrote:

Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings], Paralipomena [Chronicles] two books, Job, the David’s Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach], the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Ezra two books, Maccabees two books.

This list is the Protestant Old Testament and the seven books of the Apocrypha. (Note: the extra Apocrypha books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible go back to the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 AD.)

END QUOTE

Please note that the so-called “Apocrypha” is Scripture, Maccabees was canonized with Matthew, Sirach with the Song of Songs. No differentiation. No second class. No second canon. One collection of sacred Scripture.

The Vulgate Bible was based on the same canon, defined at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382, Pope Damasus I presiding, which the Lutheran author didn’t mention.

Jim Dandy