How do you know when to reject a book from the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

I received a PM from a non-Catholic member of the CAFs who gave me permission to share his thoughts on a new thread.

He wrote: Barnabas clearly contradicts OT scripture. If something is to be added to canon it at the very least needs to not contradict established scripture. It can be paradoxical but not contradictory. This is not a paradox if it was I could not say about it that it is not found in scripture. Scripture actually claims that something else is true(mosaic covenant and sabbath being on sat). He says it is false. So one has to be correct and hence the other cannot be inspired. Hence the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

My question: If Barnabas contradicts the OT scripture, and therefore it is not to be considered inspired, what about the Gospels which state things which contradict the OT (namely, to eat flesh and drink blood)?

Should you not then also reject the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul when command us to do something contradicted in the OT?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well many things in the Old Testament pertaining to the Old Covenant were finished
by Jesus, thus came the New Covenant. I don’t know what you specifically mean by
contradictions, but remember that this is a new era, so to speak.

As for Barnabas, the epistle I assume, not great for Scripture, but marvelous in some
areas as a testament from the disciples of the Apostles. Showed that the Doctrine of
the Trinity was well embedded in really early Christianity, at least the concept of it.
(I hear it might be antisemitic, neverthe–
less an authentic early Christian writing).
Now what shouldn’t count as Scripture? How do we know when to reject books? The
Canon of Scripture has been laid out for a long time, before Trent even, so every one
of those books used in the Catholic Bible are good and valid Scripture.

Be at ease, the Holy Spirit who guides the Church knows what he’s doing.

 

[TimothyH]

There is no contradiction about drinking blood. It is not a contradiction.

The injunction against drinking blood in the Old Testament does not contradict Christ’s instruction to drink his blood in the New Testament. God did not want us to drink animal blood because “The life is in the blood.” If we drink the blood of animals then we live the life of an animal. God reserved the drinking of blood until His Son entered creation. We drink the Blood of Christ because “The life is in the blood” and we want to live the life of Christ.

Blood of Christ = life of Christ
Blood of animal = life of animal.

The life is in the blood. That’s what the Bible says. There is no contradiction.

Whether something contradicts scripture or not is not an indication of whether it is inspired. The Canon of scripture comes from the authority of the Church. The Church’s authority was given to her authority by Christ. It is as simple as that.

Without a Church I could say that transmission repair manual is inspired. Surely a transmission repair manual certainly doesn’t contradict scripture.

-Tim-

 

[PRmerger]

Well many things in the Old Testament pertaining to the Old Covenant were finished
by Jesus, thus came the New Covenant.

So someone who believed that Barnabas ought to be in the NT canon could use that to say, “Well, the OT covenant was finished by the time Christ came and established the NT, so that’s why Barnabas doesn’t contradict the OT.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So someone who believed that Barnabas ought to be in the NT canon could use that to say, “Well, the OT covenant was finished by the time Christ came and established the NT, so that’s why Barnabas doesn’t contradict the OT.”

Well, I don’t know exactly, what are you specifically thinking? Oh, and the Old Covenant
wasn’t fulfilled until Jesus either died or rose, not born, just making sure. Also, not really
certain if Barnabas was considered for inclusion into the Canon. It is a good witness that
tells us a bit of what Early Christianity was like, certain that it was written by Barnabas
or some close associate.

So where is Barnabas supposedly contradicting?

 

[revert_jen]

So someone who believed that Barnabas ought to be in the NT canon could use that to say, “Well, the OT covenant was finished by the time Christ came and established the NT, so that’s why Barnabas doesn’t contradict the OT.”

I thought that to be considered for the canon, letters had to be apostolic in origin?

Maybe I made that up. I’d be interested to hear from someone who knew more.

–Jen

 

[PRmerger]

I thought that to be considered for the canon, letters had to be apostolic in origin?

Maybe I made that up. I’d be interested to hear from someone who knew more.

–Jen

Either apostolic or by one of their disciples.

Barnabas was a disciple of Mark, and is mentioned in the NT.

Either way, if the criterion is that it had to be apostolic in origin, that would rule out the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose authorship is unknown.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I don’t know exactly, what are you specifically thinking?
So where is Barnabas supposedly contradicting?

This is what the non-Catholic member argues regarding the contradiction:

Exodus 32 Moses destroys the tablets which God wrote his commandments. Then God tells Moses the covenant again in Ex34.
Exodus 34 “11“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

“27And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Barnabas 14 "Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He swear to the fathers to give it to the people let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins.

Barnabas asks whether the Jews had actually been given the covenant. He says they had been given it, but they did not receive it because of there sins. I would normally just say if you are given something you also receive it, but in all fairness that might be a problem with translating words from their original language and not a contradiction.

Since in Exodus God also tells them that he will drive out the 6 peoples if they follow his commandments and those people were driven out it is a sign of the covenant. I think it is fair to conclude that the covenant was actually given to them and they actually not only received it but followed it(imperfectly of course).

The second is that the Jews did and do not follow the sabbath correctly. In Barnabas 15 he claims that the sabbath is a for a thousand years and starts 6000 years the beginning of the world. Basically he is saying Moses was wrong or lying. Please tell me how this does not contradict scripture?

Exodus 35 "1Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. 2Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” "

Oh, and the Old Covenant
wasn’t fulfilled until Jesus either died or rose, not born, just making sure.

Yes. That is correct.

 

[InspiritCarol]

This is what the non-Catholic member argues regarding the contradiction:

Exodus 32 Moses destroys the tablets which God wrote his commandments. Then God tells Moses the covenant again in Ex34.
Exodus 34 “11“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

“27And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Barnabas 14 "Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He swear to the fathers to give it to the people let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins.

Barnabas asks whether the Jews had actually been given the covenant. He says they had been given it, but they did not receive it because of there sins. I would normally just say if you are given something you also receive it, but in all fairness that might be a problem with translating words from their original language and not a contradiction.

Since in Exodus God also tells them that he will drive out the 6 peoples if they follow his commandments and those people were driven out it is a sign of the covenant. I think it is fair to conclude that the covenant was actually given to them and they actually not only received it but followed it(imperfectly of course).

The second is that the Jews did and do not follow the sabbath correctly. In Barnabas 15 he claims that the sabbath is a for a thousand years and starts 6000 years the beginning of the world. Basically he is saying Moses was wrong or lying. Please tell me how this does not contradict scripture?

Exodus 35 "1Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. 2Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” "

This is a bit muddy.
If I follow correctly: this non-Catholic you are acting proxy for

1. claims contradictions between NT and OT.
   and 2. wonders about contradictions in Barnabas?

As for the first, I can honestly think of no unresolvable/inexplicable contradictions between OT and NT.

As for the second, I have to say, why care? Still, I can explain *here *that Barnabas was, of course, referring to the Creation story in Genesis, which happened ~6000 years prior (depending on how you do the generational math (I was thinking it was 4000 years prior but I honestly don’t feel overly confident about either number)). Anyway “Sabbath”, meaning rest, came from God resting on the seventh day. It seems some penalty was assigned from Moses, but the Sabbath had been there from creation.

 

[Usagi]

What exactly is the issue here? This guy is arguing that the Epistle of Barnabas cannot be inspired because it contradicts the Old Testament on the facts.

Okay, as far as I know no one considers the Epistle of Barnabas to be inspired or canonical, so what is the problem? The early Christians who established the NT canon seem to have agreed with your interlocutor, maybe even for the same reasons he gives.

The OP asks if that means other, established NT books should be rejected because they contradict the OT. First, obviously not, since it’s not our job as individual Christians to drop books from the Bible (a principle on which Catholics and Protestants would surely agree, if perhaps for different reasons). Second, while the canonical NT does feature actual changes to OT laws and commandments as well as Jesus-centric interpretations of OT passages that probably meant something different in their original contexts, those are not the same thing as contradicting the OT on the facts. Saying “Christians are not bound by the dietary laws or the Saturday Sabbath” is not the same thing as saying “Moses or God was wrong about the dietary laws and the Sabbath.” Likewise, saying “This passage was ALSO foreshadowing some element of the life of Jesus, the Messiah, though no one could have noticed that secondary meaning until now” is bringing out additional meaning, not contradicting the original meaning. Third, the “eat my flesh and drink my blood” passage in John has already been explained. The reason the Israelites were forbidden to drink animal blood is the very reason we are commanded to drink Jesus’ blood. They were to return the “life” of the animal to God rather than consuming it, whereas we are specifically commanded to consume the life that Jesus poured out for us.

Usagi

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This is what the non-Catholic member argues regarding the contradiction:
Exodus 32 Moses destroys the tablets which God wrote his commandments. Then God tells Moses the covenant again in Ex34.
Exodus 34 “11“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

“27And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Barnabas 14 "Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He swear to the fathers to give it to the people let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins.

Barnabas asks whether the Jews had actually been given the covenant. He says they had been given it, but they did not receive it because of there sins. I would normally just say if you are given something you also receive it, but in all fairness that might be a problem with translating words from their original language and not a contradiction.

Since in Exodus God also tells them that he will drive out the 6 peoples if they follow his commandments and those people were driven out it is a sign of the covenant. I think it is fair to conclude that the covenant was actually given to them and they actually not only received it but followed it(imperfectly of course).

The second is that the Jews did and do not follow the sabbath correctly. In Barnabas 15 he claims that the sabbath is a for a thousand years and starts 6000 years the beginning of the world. Basically he is saying Moses was wrong or lying. Please tell me how this does not contradict scripture?

Exodus 35 "1Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. 2Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” "

Oh, I see. And sorry, I was just curious, I have no clue how to justify it, good thing
Barnabas isn’t Scripture! If I had to make a guess, though, the Israelites didn’t
always uphold their end of the covenant, which is more a sacred form of “bargain”.

God made a covenant with the Israelites, but they did not always keep it well, that
may be what Barnabas was talking about, but I don’t know. As for Sabbath, I may
need more detail, but Moses was not wrong. Sabbath was hard to keep, do bear
mind, so Israel might not have kept it as well as God wanted them to. Again, I do
not know much here.

MAYBE Barnabas does contradict the Old Testament in some ways, I KNOW
NOT, but it’s not like the Word of God, just Post-Apostolic Christian writing.

 

[Protestor]

This is probably weird for anyone who was not in the discussion before hand. As a bit of backstory we were discussing where authority follows from and to and how much and what for. The question I was posed with, because I do not accept the authority of the RCC it is constantly brought up that I do on at least one point. I wished to challenge this and PR was kind enough to test my opinion that I can determine what is and what is not scripture. Hence the question how can you know that the epistle of Barnabas is not theopneustos and Hebrew is.

What exactly is the issue here?
The OP asks if that means other, established NT books should be rejected because they contradict the OT. First, obviously not, since it’s not our job as individual Christians to drop books from the Bible. Second, while the canonical NT does feature actual changes to OT laws and commandments as well as Jesus-centric interpretations of OT passages that probably meant something different in their original contexts, those are not the same thing as contradicting the OT on the facts.

I admit that Barnabas’s point is Christ centered and he is trying to shift the focus of the Jewish people with his account of the events. Jesus certainly was the fulfillment of the OT covenant.

Ezekiel 20 speaks of the covenant and the sabbath. I have more about this but I think it is not necessary.

On your point Barnabas is not in scripture so whatev, but about your point that I cannot reject books because of contradictions I will address. This I guess depends on your view of inerrant. If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it is vital that it does not contradict itself at least by our modern interpretation of that word. A contradiction would essentially preclude a book from being theopneustos IMNSHO.

InspiritCarol interesting view on the sabbath can you offer any quotes or is it just an opinion? That the sabbath was in place since creation. I’m interested not hating just asking.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a bit muddy.
If I follow correctly: this non-Catholic you are acting proxy for

1. claims contradictions between NT and OT.
   and 2. wonders about contradictions in Barnabas?

As for the first, I can honestly think of no unresolvable/inexplicable contradictions between OT and NT.

Indeed. So any apparent contradictions are simply those which can be explained or resolved through good Scriptural exegesis.

And that would mean that one could NOT exclude Barnabas from the canon simply based on some apparent contradictions.

 

[PRmerger]

What exactly is the issue here? This guy is arguing that the Epistle of Barnabas cannot be inspired because it contradicts the Old Testament on the facts.

Okay, as far as I know no one considers the Epistle of Barnabas to be inspired or canonical, so what is the problem? The early Christians who established the NT canon seem to have agreed with your interlocutor, maybe even for the same reasons he gives.

Well, what the problem is is this: we know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not considered canonical through one source, only–that is, because the Catholic Church declared it to be not canonical.

But those who reject the authority of the CC say, “I can know on my own that the Epistle of Barnabas is not inspired because of Reasons A, B and C.”

(Reason A= “because it contradicts the OT”)

So far, reason A is not a good reason to exclude Barnabas.

And Reason A would mean that we would have to exclude the book of James from the canon because it says that God tempts no man.

[BIBLEDRB]James 1:13 [/BIBLEDRB]

but the OT says that God tempted Abraham:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 22:1[/BIBLEDRB]

So my question to Protestor is this: do you reject the book of James because it contradicts the OT?

 

[Protestor]

I wouldn’t even consider this a paradox. You are talking about words from different languages and cultures that are translated into the same word in english. I would say that you should probably look into a more literal translation NASB or YLT(if you like older english). The problem is that tempting connotates a (for lack of a better word) evil intent or action invalid as a means of testing. Testing is a much better translation of of Gen 22:1. One way to have contradiction is to affirm and deny a premise. These premises way have to be being used in the same way or essentially the same.

What you have proven here is that God tests people but do not tempt (maliciously test) them.

 

[PRmerger]

I wouldn’t even consider this a paradox. You are talking about words from different languages and cultures that are translated into the same word in english. I would say that you should probably look into a more literal translation NASB or YLT(if you like older english). The problem is that tempting connotates a (for lack of a better word) evil intent or action invalid as a means of testing. Testing is a much better translation of of Gen 22:1. One way to have contradiction is to affirm and deny a premise. These premises way have to be being used in the same way or essentially the same.

What you have proven here is that God tests people but do not tempt (maliciously test) them.

If you are going to reject Barnabas because it contradicts the OT, then, by necessity, Protestor, you MUST also reject James.

You cannot reject one without rejecting the other, and remain consistent.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[Protestor]

If you are going to reject Barnabas because it contradicts the OT, then, by necessity, Protestor, you MUST also reject James.

You cannot reject one without rejecting the other, and remain consistent.

How do you reconcile this?

Brushing off my explanation like I did not say it is kind of disrespectful. I already told you that Gen22 and Jam(whatever) do not contradict each other. If you disagree fine explain why then come back with your statement that I must reject one if I reject the other. Your translation is wrong does this make you feel better about why I am going to not accepting your supposed contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

Brushing off my explanation like I did not say it is kind of disrespectful. I already told you that Gen22 and Jam(whatever) do not contradict each other. If you disagree fine explain why then come back with your statement that I must reject one if I reject the other. Your translation is wrong does this make you feel better about why I am going to not accepting your supposed contradiction.

It is indeed a contradiction. In fact, it is a more obvious one that the more obscure contradiction in Barnabas.

James says God tempts no man.
Genesis says God tempted Abraham.

That is a blatant contradiction, Protestor.

Yet I assume that you do not reject James from the canon.

Why is that?

 

[PRmerger]

Brushing off my explanation like I did not say it is kind of disrespectful. I already told you that Gen22 and Jam(whatever) do not contradict each other. If you disagree fine explain why then come back with your statement that I must reject one if I reject the other. Your translation is wrong does this make you feel better about why I am going to not accepting your supposed contradiction.

And if one is going to reject Barnabas because it contradicts the OT, one also needs to reject Corinthians, which also contradicts the OT.

The OT says wisdom is important.
[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 4:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Corinthians says wisdom is unimportant.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:19[/BIBLEDRB]

And yet, I presume, you do believe that Corinthians is theopneustos?

How do you reconcile this? Is this also a mis-translation?

 

[Usagi]

And if one is going to reject Barnabas because it contradicts the OT, one also needs to reject Corinthians, which also contradicts the OT.

The OT says wisdom is important.
[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 4:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Corinthians says wisdom is unimportant.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:19[/BIBLEDRB]

And yet, I presume, you do believe that Corinthians is theopneustos?

How do you reconcile this? Is this also a mis-translation?

Corinthians is quoting Isaiah, so the alleged contradiction is within the OT.

Proverbs is praising true, godly wisdom. Isaiah seems to be referring to human-claimed “wisdom” that is actually anything but. Right before that, God speaks of people who honor him with their lips but practice only human teachings rather than what God wishes. He therefore resolves to visit them with “wonder upon wonder” that will confound even the wise and intelligent.

Therefore, Isaiah as quoted in Corinthians does not seem to be decrying wisdom in general, but rather saying that those who are wise in human matters can still have their socks blown off by the things of God.

Even though I’m on your side of the larger debate here, PRMerger, I have to go with Protestor on this and the “tempting” passages. You can’t just assume that the same word in English is always being used in the same sense across different Scriptural writings.

Usagi