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

[PRmerger]

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

That is because you are viewing the writings with the lens of the Catholic Church, Usagi.

And my point is that so is Protestor, despite his “protests” to the contrary.

Without the lens of the Church telling us when there are contradictions and when they are only apparent contradictions, we cannot know what ought to be theopneustos and what is not.

 

[Usagi]

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.

The book you rejected because of contradictions is Barnabas, and I agree that it should be rejected.

But very few Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, would agree with individually deciding to drop a commonly-accepted book from the canon because you, personally, think you’ve found a contradiction between it and other Scriptures. (It’s actually PRMerger insisting that you’d have to do that if you reject Barnabas, and I disagree with him on that, but you do appear to imply above that you could personally decide that one of the accepted books is not theopneustos because you find a contradiction in it.)

Whether it’s because we specifically acknowledge Tradition as an element of divine revelation (as Catholics do) or because we simply revere the Bible as a completed work handed down to us from the earliest Christians (as many Protestants do), Christians don’t generally believe that an individual 21st-century Christian gets to go through and re-evaluate the canonicity of each book based on his or her own authority.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

That is because you are viewing the writings with the lens of the Catholic Church, Usagi.

And my point is that so is Protestor, despite his “protests” to the contrary.

Without the lens of the Church telling us when there are contradictions and when they are only apparent contradictions, we cannot know what ought to be theopneustos and what is not.

Dude, I agree with you on the larger issue that you can’t determine the canon just by looking at the books, without recourse to Tradition or the Church.

On the other hand, I did come to my conclusion about the uses of “wisdom” just by reading the larger context of the passages. I did not have to go to Tradition or the Church to figure out that two different things were being discussed and that you were being too narrow in your reading of Corinthians.

Basically, I agree with your conclusion but I think that your current method – trying to get Protestor to acknowledge contradictions within the canonical Scriptures – is not going to get you there and may, in fact, backfire (since it looks as though you are the one accusing true Scriptures of error).

Usagi

 

[PRmerger]

But very few Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, would agree with individually deciding to drop a commonly-accepted book from the canon because you, personally, think you’ve found a contradiction between it and other Scriptures. (It’s actually PRMerger insisting that you’d have to do that if you reject Barnabas, and I disagree with him on that,

Why do you disagree with me on that?

Is it not the consistent thing to do to say that if you reject one text because of its apparent contradictions, then you must reject a lot of NT books because of their apparent contradictions.

It is an untenable position that Protestor is advocating.

BTW: I am a she not a he.

but you do appear to imply above that you could personally decide that one of the accepted books is not theopneustos because you find a contradiction in it.)

Exactly.

It is the position of many Protestants here, and one that I find astonishing.

The right to decide what belongs in the NT is not the right of any individual.

 

[PRmerger]

Dude, I agree with you on the larger issue that you can’t determine the canon just by looking at the books, without recourse to Tradition or the Church.

On the other hand, I did come to my conclusion about the uses of “wisdom” just by reading the larger context of the passages. I did not have to go to Tradition or the Church to figure out that two different things were being discussed and that you were being too narrow in your reading of Corinthians.

Basically, I agree with your conclusion but I think that your current method – trying to get Protestor to acknowledge contradictions within the canonical Scriptures – is not going to get you there and may, in fact, backfire (since it looks as though you are the one accusing true Scriptures of error).

Usagi

It’s simply a matter of consistency, Usagi.

If one rejects a text because it contradicts the OT, then one needs to reject a whole lot o’ books in the NT.

I can keep slinging book after NT book with contradictions and recourse to “it’s a mistranslation” will sound very, very contrived.

 

[Usagi]

It’s simply a matter of consistency, Usagi.

If one rejects a text because it contradicts the OT, then one needs to reject a whole lot o’ books in the NT.

I can keep slinging book after NT book with contradictions and recourse to “it’s a mistranslation” will sound very, very contrived.

But even you don’t believe those books REALLY contradict the OT. And while in some cases you may have to trust to the fact that they don’t because otherwise the Church wouldn’t have canonized them, usually it’s possible to look at the context and figure out what’s being said and how it’s not a direct contradiction. Even without translation issues, words have multiple meanings and people can say things that sound contradictory but really aren’t. (“Absence makes the heart grow fonder” and “Out of sight, out of mind” are both (secular) proverbs. Each reflects something true that people have experienced about life, even though taken completely literally they say opposing things.)

Usagi

 

[PRmerger]

But even you don’t believe those books REALLY contradict the OT.

Of course not.

But whatever reasoning that is used to support this argument “This NT book doesn’t *really *contradict the OT because of reasons A, B and C” could also be applied to Barnabas.

And while in some cases you may have to trust to the fact that they don’t because otherwise the Church wouldn’t have canonized them, usually it’s possible to look at the context and figure out what’s being said and how it’s not a direct contradiction.

And all that would be needed would be one NT book in order to refute Protestor’s position that he doesn’t need the Catholic Church to tell him what’s theopneustos, right?

 

[Protestor]

It is indeed a contradiction.

False
I am going to make a few statements I want to know which of these you agree with and which you do not.

I am assuming you understand that translation from two different languages and cultures can into a single language is imperfect.

peirázō is a word used both for tempt or test. It depends on the context in which it is being used.

peirázō in the context of James1 means tempt (which is a negative term)

The NASB is the most literal translation, besides an interlinear w/strongs numbers.

Tempting connotates a (for lack of a better word) evil intent or action and is a specific type of testing

Testing is a better translation of of Gen 22:1.

I just have to know what I can work with. There seems to be a bit of miscommunication between us on what you agree with and not.

 

[PRmerger]

False
I am going to make a few statements I want to know which of these you agree with and which you do not.

True.

I am assuming you understand that translation from two different languages and cultures can into a single language is imperfect.

True.

peirázō is a word used both for tempt or test. It depends on the context in which it is being used.

peirázō in the context of James1 means tempt (which is a negative term)

The NASB is the most literal translation, besides an interlinear w/strongs numbers.

Tempting connotates a (for lack of a better word) evil intent or action and is a specific type of testing

Testing is a better translation of of Gen 22:1.

I have no opinion on the above.

I just have to know what I can work with. There seems to be a bit of miscommunication between us on what you agree with and not.

I think your argument that it’s possible to have a mistranslation for James is moot, because you also argue that Barnabas could have been a mistranslation. You say that here:

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.

So it still brings us to the question: how do you know that Barnabas is not inspired?

 

[Protestor]

You say that here:

Look I think I have offered a plausible explanation and if you choose to deny that the word used can mean either(fact), that it depends upon the context(fact), within the context James1:13 the word should be translated as tempt(fact), even the DRB agrees with this and ever other translation I can find, tempting is basically either trying to cause someone to sin or actually causing someone to sin and in luke14:1-4 Jesus talks about this saying it is wrong(I cannot believe you are even questioning this),

I pulled this from RSV-CE second edition. Supposedly this is pretty accurate for catholic bibles(couldn’t help but put that quip in there)
1 After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.”

When I say accurate I mean more of a word for word accuracy which does not always translate into it flowing well in the translated language. I know that you people are really attached to the DRB which does translate Gen 22 as tempt. I understand if you think I am wrong or you just do not know about wether this passage should read tempt or test.

You agree that, I assume, that a word can have two meanings. Which bring me back to what I tried to say before. For a contradiction to be a contradiction it must be A and not A. For a contradiction to actually be in affect here you would have to prove that these have the same meaning and are being applied in the same way. Which you have not done nor can you but I am willing to watch you try. Remember you either have to show that they both mean test and this cannot just be that tempting is a type of testing. If that is your premise this is not a contradiction. This is a situation is A(a) and not A(b) . Or that they both mean tempt. In this case I would like you to explain why you are attributing sins to God. Anyway back to my point that this is purely a case of mistranslation.

I already wrote this before I read your whole I got to you saying my argument is moot. I think you forgot that after that quote I at least tried to prove that it was a contradiction. Not on the basis of those words being within the same text being contradictory themselves. But I set out to show that it contradicted the passage of Exodus. I was giving a concession to Barnabas he might have meant that the Jews were given the covenant by the Lord but they refused to receive it, because someone can give someone a present and they refuse to take it. This is not the case here but I was acknowledging that the case does exist where this passage is not a contradiction in itself. I still think that it does contradict itself, but if you read exodus and are not convinced read the first few chapters of duet ( i will highlight 8:18, 7:9,12, 6:20-25, 5:22-33) if those verses do not convince you that the Jews received the covenant you are incorrigible go to the pope maybe he can convince you.

 

[Protestor]

but you do appear to imply above that you could personally decide that one of the accepted books is not theopneustos because you find a contradiction in it.)
Usagi

Very true, I do claim that Providentissimus Deus section 20 shows the extant to which tradition finds scripture without error. I would say that post Vatican II that this is viewed in a different light but it still retains the precept that The bible is without error. I hold a very high view of scripture which is why I hold it to a high standard. If it has contradictions than I believe it has error and is not scripture. If I find a error I ascribe it to my limited knowledge or human error in copying. These I think are few and far between, but they do exist. This is not something I think is completely quantifiable and I take on faith. Things such as the paradox of Mk2:26 can be “fully” explained even though at first glance they screem of error. I do not jump to the conclusion of error I keep the possibility open.

 

[PRmerger]

Things such as the paradox of Mk2:26 can be “fully” explained even though at first glance they screem of error. I do not jump to the conclusion of error I keep the possibility open.

That is because you have already, prima facie, accepted that Mark is theopneustos, Protestor.

And you accept that Mark is inspired because you accept the authority of the CC telling you it is inspired.

However, you reject the contradictions of Barnabas because you have already understood that it is NOT inspired.

If it were, then you would have to accept the contradictions and then acknowledge the tension between the apparent contradiction it proclaims with that which was written in the OT.

 

[PRmerger]

Look I think I have offered a plausible explanation and if you choose to deny that the word used can mean either(fact), that it depends upon the context(fact), within the context James1:13 the word should be translated as tempt(fact), even the DRB agrees with this and ever other translation I can find, tempting is basically either trying to cause someone to sin or actually causing someone to sin and in luke14:1-4 Jesus talks about this saying it is wrong(I cannot believe you are even questioning this),

I think we both know that this discussion is not at all about whether James actually contradicts Genesis.

The point is that when there appears to be a contradiction, we have to find a way to explain it…because we already know that the book in question is already inspired. We accept that, and then because we accept that, we have to look for reasons why it doesn’t actually contradict the Word of God.

So the fact that Barnabas appears to contradict the OT could not be a reason for you to reject it as being inspired.

Because if it were inspired, you and I would have to struggle to find out why it really doesn’t contradict.

So, again, this brings me to a very, very important and incontrovertible point: you cannot know that Barnabas is not inspired…except through…

trusting that the Catholic Church got it right when she discerned that 27 book canon of the NT.

 

[po18guy]

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.

If you reject the authority of the Church, then you must begin anew your personal, individual search for inspired scriptures. A Pope and council tested, approved and declared each and every book and epistle in your bible to be inspired - at more than one council. If you reject that authority, don’t you have an obligation before God to search all over again?

And, if that authority somehow resides in the individual, or simply anywhere outside of the Catholic Church, why didn’t the reformers canonize their own bible? Why did they not test the Deuterocanonical books to their own standards?

You may reject that authority, but I’ll wager that you trust it in 66 out of 73 cases.

 

[Contarini]

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?

Well, I certainly think the early Church made the right call in rejecting Barnabas, particularly because of its harsh attitude toward the OT Law.

But if he’s suggesting that this is some kind of objectively applicable criterion, then that’s nonsense. It’s “selection bias,” just as when Protestants say that the deuterocanonical books have historical errors or advocate deception or teach salvation through good works or whatever.You can make a case that they have more of these things than the undisputed books, so that if you’ve already decided to reject them you can justify your rejection that way. But these things are found, or could be claimed to be found, in the undisputed books too (as can apparent misogyny, which alas is rarely cited but was my big problem with Sirach).

So I’m glad that I don’t have to explain how to reconcile Barnabas with the OT. But I do have to explain Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 and Paul’s equation of “fleshly Israel” with Ishmael in Galatians and so on. So if I were setting out to exclude from the canon anything that seemed to disparage or contradict the OT, I’d wind up with a very small canon indeed!

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I certainly think the early Church made the right call in rejecting Barnabas, particularly because of its harsh attitude toward the OT Law.

Indeed.

And that is a testament to the fact that you defer to the Church on this matter.

But if he’s suggesting that this is some kind of objectively applicable criterion, then that’s nonsense. It’s “selection bias,” just as when Protestants say that the deuterocanonical books have historical errors or advocate deception or teach salvation through good works or whatever.You can make a case that they have more of these things than the undisputed books, so that if you’ve already decided to reject them you can justify your rejection that way. But these things are found, or could be claimed to be found, in the undisputed books too (as can apparent misogyny, which alas is rarely cited but was my big problem with Sirach).

So I’m glad that I don’t have to explain how to reconcile Barnabas with the OT. But I do have to explain Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 and Paul’s equation of “fleshly Israel” with Ishmael in Galatians and so on. So if I were setting out to exclude from the canon anything that seemed to disparage or contradict the OT, I’d wind up with a very small canon indeed!

Edwin

Egg-zactly.

 

[Protestor]

That is because you have already, prima facie, accepted that Mark is theopneustos, Protestor. And you accept that Mark is inspired because you accept the authority of the CC telling you it is inspired. If it were, then you would have to accept the contradictions and then acknowledge the tension between the apparent contradiction it proclaims with that which was written in the OT.

Because if it were inspired, you and I would have to struggle to find out why it really doesn’t contradict. So, again, this brings me to a very, very important and incontrovertible point: you cannot know that Barnabas is not inspired…except through… trusting that the Catholic Church got it right when she discerned that 27 book canon of the NT.

I think you are taking my placation with Usagi as being my actual point.
" If I find a error I ascribe it to my limited knowledge or human error in copying. These I think are few and far between, but they do exist." I should probably say that I have never found a “copying error” but I will refer back to my limited knowledge of the bible. I have looked through a small portion of the skeptics annotated bible under contradictions most of which are so wrong it is funny and sad.

Here is the thing I understand that the CC had a part to play in the which books I now know to be theopneustos. Even if it is just that they copied some books and not others leaving me with only a few to choose from. I am not saying this is all they did. I am saying that even this small detail is a huge deal in what I can and cannot accept as scripture. I am not trying to nullify the CC role in the revelation of canon completely.

I think I have already told you I did not, prima facia, accept all of the books of the NT. I already described to you before how I questioned and did not accept James and Revelation. My acceptance of those books had much less to do with a checklist and more to do with a moving of the spirit within me. I am not claiming a truly numinal(like what Randolf Otto describes) experience. You can call this malarky if you like but I do not think it is really possible to completely describe spiritual experiences with our language. Our language is very good at describing physical things but spiritual thing lack descriptive words and seem to lack veracity when said and/or written. That is why I point to contradiction as a quantifiable source of distinction between that which is and is not scripture.

I think you are mistaking things that at first glance look like contradictions, and those things which are. Things like Mk2:26 are better termed as paradoxes, because a paradox is that which looks like a contradiction or if you prefer a seemingly contradictory statement.Something that is a paradox is the trinity. It is hard to talk about what would be done if things were different because objectivity becomes almost impossible. For you I know it is cut and dry, but for me it is more grey wether I would accept this book. I cannot prove to you that I would not accept the book if it had been accepted by the early church, because it wasn’t and I cannot say with surety that reject it. The only way for me to prove that I would is to disavow a book that is currently held by the general populous as being scripture.

 

[Protestor]

If you reject the authority of the Church, then you must begin anew your personal, individual search for inspired scriptures. A Pope and council tested, approved and declared each and every book and epistle in your bible to be inspired - at more than one council. If you reject that authority, don’t you have an obligation before God to search all over again?

I guess I have some searching to do if you are correct. I am not sure I would completely agree, but that’s fine with me.

And, if that authority somehow resides in the individual, or simply anywhere outside of the Catholic Church, why didn’t the reformers canonize their own bible? Why did they not test the Deuterocanonical books to their own standards?

I don’t think I am following you… unless you are trying to make your point in a form of a question which is pretty slick.

Since I have not even mentioned any of the deuterocanonical books or anything within them quite purposefully because I did not feel like getting into topics that are vehemently disputed commonly. I would rather not be bored by it right now.

I think that I am saying that I do hold all books to the same standard. My history is not so great so I have no idea what the reformers did or did not think on this subject.

I have not read the D.B.'s so I do not think I can talk intelligently about them unless you consider what charm ministries puts out to be intelligent. I have heard that tolbit is a lovely book about family relations.

I hope if we continue discussing things that if I refer you back to another post from earlier that you will read it. I don’t fancy repeating myself

 

[PRmerger]

Here is the thing I understand that the CC had a part to play in the which books I now know to be theopneustos.

Yes! :clapping:

Even if it is just that they copied some books and not others leaving me with only a few to choose from.

Really. So now you’re saying that you get to choose which books are inspired and which ones are not?

Is that really what you are saying?

I am not saying this is all they did. I am saying that even this small detail is a huge deal in what I can and cannot accept as scripture. I am not trying to nullify the CC role in the revelation of canon completely.

Well, any admission at all is huge, Protestor.

It means that you are not a Bible Alone advocate. It means that you defer to the authority of something other than Scripture. Namely, the CC.

I think I have already told you I did not, prima facia, accept all of the books of the NT. I already described to you before how I questioned and did not accept James and Revelation. My acceptance of those books had much less to do with a checklist and more to do with a moving of the spirit within me.

Then I suppose you will grant this group the right to declare all of the writings of St. Paul to be satanic?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

I can’t even imagine the chaos and confusion that you are advocating here. In all my years of being here on the CAFs, of late there seems to be a newly vocal Protestant voice here that is saying that they get to decide what’s inspired and what’s not.

That’s a new argument that hasn’t been around in my circles until now.

Imagine, now, in addition to the tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one…

there is now going to be tens of thousands of differing New Testaments. Some will reject James and Revelation. Some will reject the Gospels. Some will reject the Pauline Epistles.

Some, I suppose, will start declaring, after study and prayer, that the Gnostic Gospels are inspired.

And you will not be able to tell them that they can’t do this, for they are doing the very same thing you claim to be able to do for yourself.

This is the monster that you are advocating?

 

[po18guy]

I guess I have some searching to do if you are correct. I am not sure I would completely agree, but that’s fine with me.

My point is that it is inconsistent to trust the Catholic Church on scripture and distrust it elsewhere. And, if one trusts the Church for something as integral to Christianity as the bible, why then distrust it in matters of faith and morals? Those who do this seem to have misplaced their trust either in the former case or in the latter.