Question on the canon of scripture

[mercygate]

One of the arguments catholic apologists use for the Catholic church is : Without an infalliable authority, outside of scripture, how does one know what the new testament canon is? How do we know that certain books like the Gospel of Saint Thomas doesnt belong in the canon? ---------now here is my question!!! If the Protestant asks "how did the jews of the Old testament know what scripture was? They didnt have an infallible church to tell them Exodus was scripture? If the Jews didnt need an infallible Church neither do we?-------i appreciate your responses!!!

The Jews in the time of Jesus did not have a canon. The Saducees did not recognize the wisdom books or the prophets, their canon was the Torah only.

The word “scripture” meaning this-hard-and-fast-set-of-writings-and-no-others – as we use it today, is a later development.

In the 4th Century, before the closing of the NT canon, there was wide acceptance of most of the books, but several were in dispute and were the center of heated debate. Revelation, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John were on the list of disputed books.

In some Churches as late as 390, the “Gospel of Peter” was being read in some places.

 

[frnate]

Where did God speak to the Jews and define the OT canon?

A better question for n-C’s is:

Where did God speak to the Christians and define the entire canon?

Peace,
+N

 

[JimG]

It was the same infallible authority back then as now. One which Protestants reject…Tradition. Do a word study on paradosis it will be quite enlightening.

Peace,
+N

Exactly. The Old Covenant worked pretty much like the New. God gave his word to the Israelites. It was their job to hand down what was given to them; just as it is the job of the Catholic Church to hand on the Apostolic Tradition with which it was entrusted.

It is a peculiarly modern notion that ‘you gotta write everything down!.’ Nobody told God that.

Additionally, I might note that until the coming of Jesus, God’s revelation was ongoing through the prophets. There could not be a canon of scripture until revelation was complete.

 

[mercygate]

There could not be a canon of scripture until revelation was complete.

This is so obvious it is painful, but I had never thought of it that way before! Thank you, JimG! :tiphat:

 

[Teflon93]

Where did God speak to the Jews and define the OT canon?

Didn’t God speak to the Jews throughout their history in a variety of forms—cloud, bush, pillar of fire, presence in the Temple, etc?

Isn’t that where The Law came from?

I presume we’re not questioning Moses’ authority re: the commandments, are we?

 

[Calvinator]

Didn’t God speak to the Jews throughout their history in a variety of forms—cloud, bush, pillar of fire, presence in the Temple, etc?

Isn’t that where The Law came from?

I presume we’re not questioning Moses’ authority re: the commandments, are we?

Okay…so according to you, God defined the OT canon for them, is this what you are saying?

 

[Calvinator]

A better question for n-C’s is:

Where did God speak to the Christians and define the entire canon?

Peace,
+N

It’s not my contention that one must have an infallible church to know what the canon is.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It’s not my contention that one must have an infallible church to know what the canon is.

Then how do we know what’s canonical Scripture and what’s heresy/spurious?

 

[flyersfan1088]

It’s not my contention that one must have an infallible church to know what the canon is.

If not, than who decides? By what authority?

 

[Teflon93]

Okay…so according to you, God defined the OT canon for them, is this what you are saying?

I’m simply saying that in the case of the teachings of the OT God both directly dictated (a la the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai) and indirectly inspired (through the prophets) what came to be known by us as the Old Testament. Now, that distinction—Old Testament—represents 46 books defined as the canon by the Catholic Church, which included those 46 which represented the Greek translations of scripture widely used by the Jews in Christ’s time.

There were at least 3 different canons used by various Jewish sects and obviously there was disagreement as to which was the correct one.

By the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled on its canon, which it reaffirmed 12 centuries later when it acknowledged the same 73 books to be the Bible.

So the great chain of the development of the Bible runs:

1. God to the Jews
2. Christ to the Catholic Church

And yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit guided the proceedings which led to the definition of the 73. I do not believe that the publishing of the Holy Bible somehow created an invisible church nor represented the withdrawal of the Catholic Church’s authority.

 

[rookie12]

Nice job----That was pretty especially teflon-----

 

[Gamera]

This is so obvious it is painful, but I had never thought of it that way before! Thank you, JimG! :tiphat:

Ummmm … didn’t I say the same thing back in post #2?

 

[mercygate]

Ummmm … didn’t I say the same thing back in post #2?

OK, so maybe I’m a little slow and I have to hear something more than once before it sinks in. I did not mean to slight your effort.

 

[Gamera]

OK, so maybe I’m a little slow and I have to hear something more than once before it sinks in. I did not mean to slight your effort.

I didn’t take it that way — I just thought it was funny.

 

[Calvinator]

I’m simply saying that in the case of the teachings of the OT God both directly dictated (a la the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai) and indirectly inspired (through the prophets) what came to be known by us as the Old Testament. Now, that distinction—Old Testament—represents 46 books defined as the canon by the Catholic Church, which included those 46 which represented the Greek translations of scripture widely used by the Jews in Christ’s time.

There were at least 3 different canons used by various Jewish sects and obviously there was disagreement as to which was the correct one.

By the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled on its canon, which it reaffirmed 12 centuries later when it acknowledged the same 73 books to be the Bible.

So the great chain of the development of the Bible runs:

1. God to the Jews
2. Christ to the Catholic Church

And yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit guided the proceedings which led to the definition of the 73. I do not believe that the publishing of the Holy Bible somehow created an invisible church nor represented the withdrawal of the Catholic Church’s authority.

I’m not sure I understand.

You say:

So the great chain of the development of the Bible runs:

1. God to the Jews
2. Christ to the Catholic Church

You also say that:

I’m simply saying that in the case of the teachings of the OT God both directly dictated (a la the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai) and indirectly inspired (through the prophets) what came to be known by us as the Old Testament.

I think you mean by “God to the Jews” in your chain of Bible development that “God both directly dictated (a la the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai) and indirectly inspired (through the prophets) what came to be known by us as the Old Testament.”

How does this differ from the NT inspiration?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m not sure I understand.

You say:

You also say that:

I think you mean by “God to the Jews” in your chain of Bible development that “God both directly dictated (a la the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai) and indirectly inspired (through the prophets) what came to be known by us as the Old Testament.”

How does this differ from the NT inspiration?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

Christ did not dictate the gospel as the Lord dictated the Ten Commandments; his teachings and his example were incorporated within it. These traditions maintained by the apostles through the Catholic Church were eventually written down. The written gospel proved useful enough that false gospels proliferated, and the Catholic Church sorted through these with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to produce the New Testament.

Depending on what you mean, I would say one difference was that the New Testament was produced by the Catholic Church under the authority granted it by Christ.

As no one has pointed to an anti-Pentecost, that authority remains, although unrecognized by non-Catholics.

 

[Bishopite]

One of the arguments catholic apologists use for the Catholic church is : Without an infalliable authority, outside of scripture, how does one know what the new testament canon is? How do we know that certain books like the Gospel of Saint Thomas doesnt belong in the canon? ---------now here is my question!!! If the Protestant asks "how did the jews of the Old testament know what scripture was? They didnt have an infallible church to tell them Exodus was scripture? If the Jews didnt need an infallible Church neither do we?-------i appreciate your responses!!!

The problem with your assertion is that the Jews didn’t for sure “know” what was the canon for all revelation hadn’t stopped until the death of the last Apostle. The canon was NOT fixed at the time of Christ. The Old Testament Jews only knew what scripture was from what had been revealed to them up to that time. The Jews lost their ability to further receive and therefore proclaim divine revelation after denying Jesus Christ as the Messiah and that Jesus established a “new covenant.” Protestants actually rely on the Catholic church to tell them that all revelation had ceased after the death of the last Apostle, since it nowhere is stated in scripture. Furthermore the Jews at Jamnia followed the Phariscial canon since the phariscial element of the gathering of Jamnia became the domininant force with the Jews. That Jamnia denied the deuterocanonical books of the OT, isn’t a problem for they also denied the gospels.

 

[Cranch]

Christ did not dictate the gospel as the Lord dictated the Ten Commandments; his teachings and his example were incorporated within it. These traditions maintained by the apostles through the Catholic Church were eventually written down. The written gospel proved useful enough that false gospels proliferated, and the Catholic Church sorted through these with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to produce the New Testament.

Depending on what you mean, I would say one difference was that the New Testament was produced by the Catholic Church under the authority granted it by Christ.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent or misunderstand you but I do want to make the point that the New Testament is not simply Apostolic Tradition committed to writing and thus a creation or development of Tradition. Though the Catholic Church rightly identified the contents of the canon, Scripture comes from God via the Holy Spirit and stands beside Tradition (also from God) as an equal partner in God’s self-revelation. Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture from Tradition. According to the CCC:

**II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

** One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For** both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring**, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

**81 **"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

40 DV 9.
41 Mt 28:20.
42 DV 9.
43 DV 9.
44 DV 9.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t want to go off on a tangent or misunderstand you but I do want to make the point that the New Testament is not simply Apostolic Tradition committed to writing and thus a creation or development of Tradition. Though the Catholic Church rightly identified the contents of the canon, Scripture comes from God via the Holy Spirit and stands beside Tradition (also from God) as an equal partner in God’s self-revelation. Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture from Tradition. According to the CCC:

You are correct and I should have made it clear that I was using tradition in the oral tradition sense, as in accounts of the apostles prior to their being written down. As I indicated earlier, the Holy Spirit was at work in the establishment of the canon by the Catholic Church as well as in the commission to print of the New Testament.

 

[Calvinator]

I’m not sure I understand your question.

Christ did not dictate the gospel as the Lord dictated the Ten Commandments; his teachings and his example were incorporated within it. These traditions maintained by the apostles through the Catholic Church were eventually written down. The written gospel proved useful enough that false gospels proliferated, and the Catholic Church sorted through these with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to produce the New Testament.

Depending on what you mean, I would say one difference was that the New Testament was produced by the Catholic Church under the authority granted it by Christ.

As no one has pointed to an anti-Pentecost, that authority remains, although unrecognized by non-Catholics.

While the decalogue was transmitted by God in a special way, the rest of the OT wasn’t transmitted that directly or maybe physically would be a better term to use here.

Even if God wrote the OT himself with His own hand, you still have the issue of how did the non-witnesses recognize what was and what wasn’t scripture.

For example, if God revealed a prophecy to you, you may be certain it is from God but how would I or my grandchildren’s grandchildren know that the prophecy was from God? Short of God revealing it to the non-witnesses directly they still had to rely on some other fallible source didn’t they? Remember that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and I maintain they had no link to an infallible source so they had to have some way of discerning the scriptures. Now, I have never heard the Jews claim that they had anything remotely like what you guys believe your magesterium to be.

While they had the Ummim and Thurmim ( I don’t have my Bible handy so I am quite sure I didn’t spell these two words correctly), they only had them for a time before they were lost.

Of course God is infallible but I don’t recall the Jews ever claiming that God through some unwritten tradition revealed the OT canon to them. If you have knowledge of such a claim please share it.