If the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, then who did?

[Jim_Dandy]

Luther knew from whence scripture came - The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in unity prior to the Schism.

Jon

Hi Jon - I hope you had a blessed Christmas.

For those who may not know, Luther rejected several books from both the OT and the NT that were canonized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In his German translation of the Bible (1534), he separated the writings he considered “not scripture” into two appendices, one for the OT and another for the NT, and kept them apart from the writings he considered Scripture, For emphasis, he left the pages unnumbered. He also wrote prefaces explaining why he didn’t regard these writings as Scripture. Thus Luther removed the books from the canon, but left them out of order in appendices in his Bible with explanatory notes…

Luther wrote in his preface to the OT writings he labelled “Apocrypha”: “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

All his prefaces can be read here: Note especially the prefaces to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

Jim Dandy

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

I know that it is a popular belief in revisionist history that the Catholic Church did not compile the Holy Bible. Well, if that’s the case, then who did?

The Bible was compiled by councils that existed before the split of Rome and the East. I really don’t think it matters who compiled it so much as it does that the Holy Spirit inspired individuals to write the Word of God and then later to use others to compile it and keep it from several other heretical writings. The Roman Catholic church as it is today did Not put the Bible together. That is a pretty simple matter of history. For those that would argue that it did, the mere fact that the East has a different set of books in their canon than Rome does pretty much shoots holes galore in that theory.

 

[lucky4075]

Not trying to come off as offensive at all. Here’s my viewpoint:

No matter how you split, look at it, want to deny it, refuse to acknowledge it, don’t want to believe it, or whatever the case, before there was a Bible there was a Church. That Church was/is the same one that is repeatedly mentioned in the NT, the same one that has mountains upon mountains of evidence and confirmations from early Church fathers and documents. If you honestly and sincerely look at all of the evidence- go all the way back to Matthew 16- "You are Peter… LOOK AT THE ARAMAIC!!! C’mon! It’s obvious what Jesus was saying. The Apostles took Him quite literally!
This whole subject has been completely beat to death for over 500 years. Like I said earlier, I’m not typing all of this to annoy or offend anyone. I sincerely wish people would just sit down and really prayerfully examine the evidence for Catholicism with an open mind.

Protestants, I/Catholics do not mean to sound condescending or mean when we talk about this subject, but if you were in our shoes you would be as ardent in our stance as we are.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Not trying to come off as offensive at all. Here’s my viewpoint:

No matter how you split, look at it, want to deny it, refuse to acknowledge it, don’t want to believe it, or whatever the case, before there was a Bible there was a Church. That Church was/is the same one that is repeatedly mentioned in the NT, the same one that has mountains upon mountains of evidence and confirmations from early Church fathers and documents. If you honestly and sincerely look at all of the evidence- go all the way back to Matthew 16- "You are Peter… LOOK AT THE ARAMAIC!!! C’mon! It’s obvious what Jesus was saying. The Apostles took Him quite literally!
This whole subject has been completely beat to death for over 500 years. Like I said earlier, I’m not typing all of this to annoy or offend anyone. I sincerely wish people would just sit down and really prayerfully examine the evidence for Catholicism with an open mind.

Protestants, I/Catholics do not mean to sound condescending or mean when we talk about this subject, but if you were in our shoes you would be as ardent in our stance as we are.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here is a list of councils that took place well before the schism in 1054.
The last one listed is one that the eastern church accepted.
So why aren’t the Canons the same between east and west?

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Firstly, I think we should keep in mind that the fathers at Nicaea II were not probably reading every single canon and council they were approving; it was likely more a rubber stamping process (a truly very large number of councils were rubber stamped at Trullo and later Nicaea II, Carthage was just one of many). Secondly, there were old testament books already in use in the East at the time of Nicaea II, like 1 Esdras and psalm 151 which do not appear in the canon approved at Carthage. It would have made no sense for them to remove these books from their canon, so they didn’t.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon - I hope you had a blessed Christmas.

For those who may not know, Luther rejected several books from both the OT and the NT that were canonized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In his German translation of the Bible (1534), he separated the writings he considered “not scripture” into two appendices, one for the OT and another for the NT, and kept them apart from the writings he considered Scripture, For emphasis, he left the pages unnumbered. He also wrote prefaces explaining why he didn’t regard these writings as Scripture. Thus Luther removed the books from the canon, but left them out of order in appendices in his Bible with explanatory notes…

Luther wrote in his preface to the OT writings he labelled “Apocrypha”: “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

All his prefaces can be read here: Note especially the prefaces to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

Jim Dandy

Hi Jim,
It is good to “talk” with you again. I too hope you have had and continue to have a blessed Christmas.
Let’s also remember that questioning the canonicity of said books was permitted of Catholics prior to Trent. Luther contemporary and antagonist Cardinal Cajetan also held the Deuterocanon to be not on the same level as the canon.
As for the NT books in question, the dispute regarding them dates back, well, virtually through the entire history of the Church, post-apostolic. Eusebius, for example.

What is true about Luther is that, dispite his reservations about these books, he did translate them and include them in his 1534 translation. Obviously, he held them in high enough regard to spend the time and energy to do that. Finally, regarding the preface to James, which is oft cited, it appeared only in the 1522 NT, and not later additions.

ISTM that Luther’s view of the disputed books was never as balck and white as modern apologists on either side wish to portray it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Firstly, I think we should keep in mind that the fathers at Nicaea II were not probably reading every single canon and council they were approving; it was likely more a rubber stamping process (a truly very large number of councils were rubber stamped at Trullo and later Nicaea II, Carthage was just one of many). Secondly, there were old testament books already in use in the East at the time of Nicaea II, like 1 Esdras and psalm 151 which do not appear in the canon approved at Carthage. It would have made no sense for them to remove these books from their canon, so they didn’t.

Cavaradossi,
These councils mentioned often in discussions of the canon, what is the Orthodox view of them?

Jon

 

[Bev17243]

What gives you that impression?

Jon

because all the Protestants i know tend to ignore church history altogether

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi,
These councils mentioned often in discussions of the canon, what is the Orthodox view of them?

Jon

I’m not sure. None of the books in the canon put forth at Carthage are rejected by the Eastern Orthodox, but the Orthodox Church does use extra books not found in the Catholic canon, like 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and 4 Maccabees. It’s worth noting that the canon differs slightly between different traditions within the Church. The Greeks for example place 4 Maccabees in the Appendix and do not include 2 Esdras at all, the Slavic traditions include both 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees in the Appendix, and the Georgians include both 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees in the body of the Old Testament. In general it seems that establishing one universal canon was not really a big concern in the East, which might explain why the canon of Carthage was never put into effect in the East.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure. None of the books in the canon put forth at Carthage are rejected by the Eastern Orthodox, but the Orthodox Church does use extra books not found in the Catholic canon, like 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and 4 Maccabees. It’s worth noting that the canon differs slightly between different traditions within the Church. The Greeks for example place 4 Maccabees in the Appendix and do not include 2 Esdras at all, the Slavic traditions include both 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees in the Appendix, and the Georgians include both 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees in the body of the Old Testament. In general it seems that establishing one universal canon was not really a big concern in the East, which might explain why the canon of Carthage was never put into effect in the East.

Is it a big deal, then, to Orthodoxy that Rome does not use them, or that Lutherans, for example, choose not to use the deuterocanon at all for the purpose of doctrine?

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is it a big deal, then, to Orthodoxy that Rome does not use them, or that Lutherans, for example, choose not to use the deuterocanon at all for the purpose of doctrine?

Jon

Again, I’m not too sure (so take my opinion with grain of salt), but since the so-called deuterocanonical books aren’t very major to begin with, probably not. It’s not as if somebody is excluding Isaiah from the Old Testament. Some like Wisdom and Sirach might have a good case for needing to be accepted because Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times, while Wisdom contains messianic prophecies.

 

[JonNC]

Again, I’m not too sure (so take my opinion with grain of salt), but since the so-called deuterocanonical books aren’t very major to begin with, probably not. It’s not as if somebody is excluding Isaiah from the Old Testament. Some like Wisdom and Sirach might have a good case for needing to be accepted because Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times, while Wisdom contains messianic prophecies.

Thanks. Maybe other Orthodox will chime in on the question, too.

Jon

 

[jenkiedad]

Some like Wisdom and Sirach might have a good case for needing to be accepted because Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times, while Wisdom contains messianic prophecies.

I’ve always been interested in this very point: If “Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times” along with other deuterocannonical books from the OT, why would Protestants not want to include those books?

 

[mark_a]

Tradition plays a big role. Not all Apostolic Churches share the same canon as the Latin Church. Several of these Churches include additional books or chapters not considered canonical by the Latin Church.

To your knowledge, does the Catholic Church have a problem with any of these books?

 

[Wesley7]

I know that it is a popular belief in revisionist history that the Catholic Church did not compile the Holy Bible. Well, if that’s the case, then who did?

I would caferully assume, that earliest Saints/Doctors composed the books to be presented to the Synod whereinwhom they decided which books are to be in the canon.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Before that , can I ask you one question. What is the literacy rate of the world before one century?. How many people can read and write?. How an illiterate layman read bible?.What is the use of him with a bible?.

After the coming of industrialization , education became a necessity to get a decent job. Then on wards only common people started going to schools for education. When people become literate , church started translation of bible into local languages and made available to public. Now also lot of catholic institutions distributes bible to public at very low cost or even free.

Literacy at the time of Christ

1% in the small towns
3% for the total population

faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

 

[LayingHands]

I know that it is a popular belief in revisionist history that the Catholic Church did not compile the Holy Bible. Well, if that’s the case, then who did?

Irenaeus in the 1st Century began gathering religious scriptures and realized, since GOD had not prophecised directly to the early Christians…which GOD had our Lord Jesus Christ spoken of ?

Eventually, the Jewish OT had to be incorporated into the Holy Bible…so to make understandable and universal, the NT scripture.

 

[Mirza19]

I’ve always been interested in this very point: If “Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times” along with other deuterocannonical books from the OT, why would Protestants not want to include those books?

The argument against Sirach is that the same passage Christ "references’ are also traditional oral wisdom of the time, and also resemble other, (Protestant) canonical Old Testament passages. Moreover, one site I read stated that the Hebrew Bible had two seperate canons at the time: the wider Greek world relied on the one with deuterocanonical books (the Septuagint), while Palestine mostly relied on what the Protestants use today. I have no idea what the historical basis is for this, or if it’s true at all.

There’s a few Apologetic websites out there that try to illustrate this. I just generally go with the idea of Christ referencing Sirach, since I like Sirarch.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Again, I’m not too sure (so take my opinion with grain of salt), but since the so-called deuterocanonical books aren’t very major to begin with, probably not. It’s not as if somebody is excluding Isaiah from the Old Testament. Some like Wisdom and Sirach might have a good case for needing to be accepted because Christ seemingly references Sirach multiple times, while Wisdom contains messianic prophecies.

Deuterocanon is a term coined in the 16th century to designate those writings which were accepted by all the local Catholic Churches later than other writings. It doesn’t mean that there are two canons. All the books of the Bible were canonized at the same time, in the same councils.

Are the books excluded from Protestant Bibles the “Word of God, Scripture” as the Catholic Church says they are? If they aren’t, and can be rejected, the entire canon is in question. All the books in the original canon rest on the same authority – the authority of the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Jim Dandy

 

[Kristin234]

To many Protestants you would think it fell out the sky magically

You mean it didn’t?!?! Every Protestant that I know, including me, believe that.