S
SSTeacher
Guest
I submit that the above assertion is but partly true. It is only the Protestant Bible that contains just 66 books. Catholic Bibles and Orthodox Bibles contain 73 books and 76 books respectively. Protestants usually describe the additional material as “apocrypha” whereas Catholics generally refer to it as “deuterocanonical.”
So an objective observer would necessarily conclude that either,
a) the Protestant Bible has been falsely abridged,
or,
b) both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have falsely included erroneous material.
Only two parties are directly involved in this disagreement: Catholics and Protestants. I guess what might be of help is to consider the motives or reasons each side ascribes to the other in respect of the clear anomaly here.
The Catholic view is that the extra material has always been there and that Protestants latterly excluded it on doctrinal grounds. Protestants are therefore simply mistaken in deciding to exclude it.
Now it seems to me that the line that anybody can make a mistake isn’t at all an easy one for classic Protestantism to adopt. Protestants came late to the debate and as the truth they have brought with them is startlingly new – the Bible now to be elevated above the Church – it’s very difficult for them to assign the failure of the Established Church to grasp this truth until 1500 years after Christ to the category of “mistake.” That’s because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that the Protestant idea is so revolutionary, it is nigh on impossible for it to be categorized as anything less than the truth that will set its adherents free. This leads to the logical conclusion that what went before the revelation of this truth could not possibly be a “mistake” but necessarily has to be culpable and deliberate falsity and misrepresentation. But why did this truth only become evident in the West so late in the program? Ah, well, that’s down to the Whore of Babylon (cf. Revelation 17 and 18), which is none other than the Roman Catholic Church with the Anti–Christ at its head sitting infallibly (sic) in the Vatican. And thus the polemical stance (epitomized in our times by Jack Chick) that some Protestants feel forced to adopt is explained.
So where does the Orthodox Church fit in to this? Well, no Reformation was necessary in the East because the Orthodox Church by the grace of God never allowed any of the aberrations that Martin Luther rightly found so objectionable. So I guess the Orthodox Church falls into the category of “guilty by association.” For example, the Orthodox Church has been teaching that there are seven sacraments (including, I should point out, the sacrament of marriage) for just as long as the Catholic Church. What a nerve!
However, the important point to note here is that the Orthodox Church includes the deuterocanonical books. It follows that the Protestant assertion that the Catholic Church suddenly came up with these extra books at the Council of Trent necessarily has to fall. Following the Schism of 1054, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other, the two Churches went their separate ways. The Orthodox Church had absolutely nothing to do with the developments in the West that led to the Reformation and the idea that the Orthodox Church would be bound by any Tridentine decision is out of the question. The only feasible explanation as to why the Orthodox Church accepts the extra material is that it was always recognized as part of the canon.
Not every Protestant feels inclined toward the Jack Chick approach. There are those Protestants who tend more toward irenics. Take Wesleyans, for example. What d’you think of them? Well, I’m here to tell you that, for the most part, they’re nice polite people whom you can take home for dinner and not worry about them stealing any of your stuff. My daughter–in–law has been a Wesleyan all her life and she’s one of the nicest politest people you could ever hope to meet not to mention being as smart as a fox with a whip and a PhD from Cambridge. So how do Wesleyans field this question?
I asked a Wesleyan pastor about it not too long after joining the Wesleyan denomination back in 2000 and his response was that Protestants recognize as canonical only the books contained in the Hebrew or Jewish canon that was settled at the Council of Jamnia around 90 AD or 100 AD.
As to why this should be, I can’t say. But even if one supposes that the Jewish canon was actually settled by 100 AD it sure seems a bit of an odd thing for the Protestants to have done. I mean, wouldn’t there have been Pharisees – or, at least, some who’d inherited and embraced a Pharisaical worldview – involved in the debates as to which books were to be allowed into the Jewish canon? It can at least be safely inferred that no Christian would have been involved.
So why did the Protestants reject Christian belief about the content of Scripture – belief that was evidently common to both the East and the West – but instead align themselves with the conclusions of those whom Christ described in such derogatory terms and who subsequently rejected Him? It does seem to be taking the anti–Catholic thing a bit over the top.
Feel free to throw some light on this matter if you feel so prompted. I’m neither a Catholic nor an Orthodox Christian so if you perceive that I’ve misrepresented either position in any way, please forgive me.
Enquiringly,
Mick
So an objective observer would necessarily conclude that either,
a) the Protestant Bible has been falsely abridged,
or,
b) both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have falsely included erroneous material.
Only two parties are directly involved in this disagreement: Catholics and Protestants. I guess what might be of help is to consider the motives or reasons each side ascribes to the other in respect of the clear anomaly here.
The Catholic view is that the extra material has always been there and that Protestants latterly excluded it on doctrinal grounds. Protestants are therefore simply mistaken in deciding to exclude it.
Now it seems to me that the line that anybody can make a mistake isn’t at all an easy one for classic Protestantism to adopt. Protestants came late to the debate and as the truth they have brought with them is startlingly new – the Bible now to be elevated above the Church – it’s very difficult for them to assign the failure of the Established Church to grasp this truth until 1500 years after Christ to the category of “mistake.” That’s because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that the Protestant idea is so revolutionary, it is nigh on impossible for it to be categorized as anything less than the truth that will set its adherents free. This leads to the logical conclusion that what went before the revelation of this truth could not possibly be a “mistake” but necessarily has to be culpable and deliberate falsity and misrepresentation. But why did this truth only become evident in the West so late in the program? Ah, well, that’s down to the Whore of Babylon (cf. Revelation 17 and 18), which is none other than the Roman Catholic Church with the Anti–Christ at its head sitting infallibly (sic) in the Vatican. And thus the polemical stance (epitomized in our times by Jack Chick) that some Protestants feel forced to adopt is explained.
So where does the Orthodox Church fit in to this? Well, no Reformation was necessary in the East because the Orthodox Church by the grace of God never allowed any of the aberrations that Martin Luther rightly found so objectionable. So I guess the Orthodox Church falls into the category of “guilty by association.” For example, the Orthodox Church has been teaching that there are seven sacraments (including, I should point out, the sacrament of marriage) for just as long as the Catholic Church. What a nerve!
However, the important point to note here is that the Orthodox Church includes the deuterocanonical books. It follows that the Protestant assertion that the Catholic Church suddenly came up with these extra books at the Council of Trent necessarily has to fall. Following the Schism of 1054, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other, the two Churches went their separate ways. The Orthodox Church had absolutely nothing to do with the developments in the West that led to the Reformation and the idea that the Orthodox Church would be bound by any Tridentine decision is out of the question. The only feasible explanation as to why the Orthodox Church accepts the extra material is that it was always recognized as part of the canon.
Not every Protestant feels inclined toward the Jack Chick approach. There are those Protestants who tend more toward irenics. Take Wesleyans, for example. What d’you think of them? Well, I’m here to tell you that, for the most part, they’re nice polite people whom you can take home for dinner and not worry about them stealing any of your stuff. My daughter–in–law has been a Wesleyan all her life and she’s one of the nicest politest people you could ever hope to meet not to mention being as smart as a fox with a whip and a PhD from Cambridge. So how do Wesleyans field this question?
I asked a Wesleyan pastor about it not too long after joining the Wesleyan denomination back in 2000 and his response was that Protestants recognize as canonical only the books contained in the Hebrew or Jewish canon that was settled at the Council of Jamnia around 90 AD or 100 AD.
As to why this should be, I can’t say. But even if one supposes that the Jewish canon was actually settled by 100 AD it sure seems a bit of an odd thing for the Protestants to have done. I mean, wouldn’t there have been Pharisees – or, at least, some who’d inherited and embraced a Pharisaical worldview – involved in the debates as to which books were to be allowed into the Jewish canon? It can at least be safely inferred that no Christian would have been involved.
So why did the Protestants reject Christian belief about the content of Scripture – belief that was evidently common to both the East and the West – but instead align themselves with the conclusions of those whom Christ described in such derogatory terms and who subsequently rejected Him? It does seem to be taking the anti–Catholic thing a bit over the top.
Feel free to throw some light on this matter if you feel so prompted. I’m neither a Catholic nor an Orthodox Christian so if you perceive that I’ve misrepresented either position in any way, please forgive me.
Enquiringly,
Mick