The Decision on the Canon of Scripture

[CutlerB]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

 

[bzkoss236]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

My question for them would be, if the Church even only recognized what the Canon was, then why do they still deny the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books?

Also, even if the Church only recognized what the Canon was, then it was still the first to assemble it on earth into what we now know as the Bible.

Unless I misunderstand what they mean by what they said. I’m assuming they mean that God established the Canon of Scripture and the Church assembled it on earth (which could very well be depending on how you look at it). But if they mean that someone else assembled it and that the Church accepted it.

 

[thistle]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

The Gospels and all the other New Testament books were written by Catholics.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

I think it’s fair to say that the Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture that prevailed in the West.

However, the influence of the Catholic Church on the matter only went so far, considering that the Greek and other Churches of the East had and still have different ideas both about the nature of the canon and what should be included in it. There’s never been ecumenical consensus on the biblical canon, nor is there any today. So I guess it depends on who the “us” is in the claim.

 

[edwest2]

I suggest the following:

amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103

Peace,
Ed

 

[CutlerB]

My question for them would be, if the Church even only recognized what the Canon was, then why do they still deny the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books?

Good question!

Unless I misunderstand what they mean by what they said. I’m assuming they mean that God established the Canon of Scripture and the Church assembled it on earth (which could very well be depending on how you look at it). But if they mean that someone else assembled it and that the Church accepted it.

I will quote from the site some of the statements, so you can be sure whether you understand it correctly. Emphasis mine.

Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their “Sacred Tradition” …] They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church; that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior to Scripture. Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture. But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible.

…]

Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said …] (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. …]

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. …]

Fifth, the Scripture says, …] (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

Conclusion

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. …]

Kind of a long quote, but that should give you an idea of what is meant.

Thanks

 

[bzkoss236]

Yeah, they make some good points, but they misunderstand. The Catholic Church was definitely the first to establish what was scripture (with the exception of the Old Testament writings which they do get right, because that was established by the Jews of the time before Christ). Establish doesn’t necessarily mean “created” as they imply. Established means first to assemble, like when we say that Jesus established the Catholic Church, he was the one to first assemble what was to be the Church and it later developed into a larger organization, but that doesn’t mean the Church didn’t exist until it became an “organization” (as in non-profit business). Also, since the Church was established by Christ, it was that Church that first assembled the Bible in its entirety (with Old and New Testaments together) as one complete book. And therefore, it established the Bible.

And it seems I was right in my first assumption as to what they meant.

 

[CutlerB]

Yeah, they make some good points, but they misunderstand. The Catholic Church was definitely the first to establish what was scripture (with the exception of the Old Testament writings which they do get right, because that was established by the Jews of the time before Christ). Establish doesn’t necessarily mean “created” as they imply. Established means first to assemble, like when we say that Jesus established the Catholic Church, he was the one to first assemble what was to be the Church and it later developed into a larger organization, but that doesn’t mean the Church didn’t exist until it became an “organization” (as in non-profit business). Also, since the Church was established by Christ, it was that Church that first assembled the Bible in its entirety (with Old and New Testaments together) as one complete book. And therefore, it established the Bible.

And it seems I was right in my first assumption as to what they meant.

So when they say “recognise” it is basically the same as assemble?

 

[bzkoss236]

So when they say “recognise” it is basically the same as assemble?

Well, if God inspired the Scriptures, then He knew which were to be assembled. The Catholic Church “recognized” which were inspired and assembled them into the New Testament and then later the Bible.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

… (with the exception of the Old Testament writings which they do get right, because that was established by the Jews of the time before Christ).

Actually, most people don’t think that there was a definitive Jewish biblical canon at the time of Christ.

… it was that Church that first assembled the Bible in its entirety (with Old and New Testaments together) as one complete book. And therefore, it established the Bible.

How do you know the Churches of East didn’t assemble their Bibles first and thus beat the Western Church to the punch?

 

[CutlerB]

How do you know the Churches of East didn’t assemble their Bibles first and thus beat the Western Church to the punch?

Would there be any evidence for that? I haven’t heard of any, and thus it would constitute an argument from silence.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Would there be any evidence for that? I haven’t heard of any, and thus it would constitute an argument from silence.

What I was questioning was the assertion (already on the table) that the Western Church was first in establishing their canon versus the various biblical canons of the Eastern Churches. I’m not asserting that the Eastern Churches were first, I’m just asking for evidence for the assertion already expressed.

Technically though, the assertion that the Western Church was first in establishing their canon is indeed an argument from silence, unless bzkoss236 can provide some evidence for us.

 

[edwest2]

I suggest everyone take a look at this:

amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967

Peace,
Ed

 

[bzkoss236]

I suggest everyone take a look at this:

amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967

Peace,
Ed

This may not be the best resource. Graham makes some weird claims in this book.

And I may not be able to give direct evidence (citations), but if my memory of Church history is correct, Eastern Christianity came out of the Western Christianity in the great schism between Catholicism (early Christians) and Eastern Orthodox, which was in the 11th century A.D. (if memory serves correct), which is about 700 years after the Canon was created (in the 300’s A.D.).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This may not be the best resource. Graham makes some weird claims in this book.

And I may not be able to give direct evidence (citations), but if my memory of Church history is correct, Eastern Christianity came out of the Western Christianity in the great schism between Catholicism (early Christians) and Eastern Orthodox, which was in the 11th century A.D. (if memory serves correct), which is about 700 years after the Canon was created (in the 300’s A.D.).

The Eastern Churches (of which there are a number–Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, so-called Oriental Orthodox, etc.) also trace their roots back to the apostles and have had varying relationships (or lack thereof) with the Western Church over the centuries. So they didn’t appear in the 11th century; the church in Antioch, just as an example would pre-date the church in Rome.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel calls these the “ancient churches” which I think is a nice neutral term.

Anyway, since these church have their own biblical canons, it seems at least possible that their definitions of the canon would predate the Western one. Potential real examples would be Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the oldest surviving Bibles.

 

[bzkoss236]

The Eastern Churches (of which there are a number–Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, so-called Oriental Orthodox, etc.) also trace their roots back to the apostles and have had varying relationships (or lack thereof) with the Western Church over the centuries. So they didn’t appear in the 11th century; the church in Antioch, just as an example would pre-date the church in Rome.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel calls these the “ancient churches” which I think is a nice neutral term.

Anyway, since these church have their own biblical canons, it seems at least possible that their definitions of the canon would predate the Western one. Potential real examples would be Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the oldest surviving Bibles.

First, your presumption is that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until there was the church in Rome. Those early Eastern churches were part of the Catholic Church (then just considered Christian Church) until the Great Schism. Also, having a collection of books doesn’t make it an official Canon and doesn’t mean they were assembled with the intention of collecting inspired books. Also, the two codexes you mentioned are, no where I’ve read, referred to as bibles. They’ve been used as references in assisting translations of the Bible, and they are said to contain some of the books of the Bible.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

First, your presumption is that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until there was the church in Rome. Those early Eastern churches were part of the Catholic Church (then just considered Christian Church) until the Great Schism. Also, having a collection of books doesn’t make it an official Canon and doesn’t mean they were assembled with the intention of collecting inspired books. Also, the two codexes you mentioned are, no where I’ve read, referred to as bibles. They’ve been used as references in assisting translations of the Bible, and they are said to contain some of the books of the Bible.

That’s really not an accurate view of church history. The schism sometimes referred to as the “Great Schism” (though the schism with the Oriental Orthodox 500 years earlier probably involved more Christians) only refers one particular eastern church, the Byzantine Church. You’re presenting history as if there were only one church until the 11th century, when two suddenly appeared–that’s just not congruent with the facts.

There is a lot of information on the history of the various Eastern Churches available on the Internet and I think you will find such information very eye-opening. I will also look for Fr. Groeshel’s discussion of the topic as well. A good book on the topic is Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity.

Yes, having a collection of books doesn’t necessarily doesn’t equate to an official canon, but it does provide at least some sense of which books the compilers thought were important and which books need to be chosen for a collection of scripture. Here I would suggest the book: Codex Sinaiticus:The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible by D.C. Parker.

I think the fact that each Eastern Church devised their own biblical canon shows that the ancient churches were in probably agreement on some important things and on some other important things, not in so much agreement.

 

[mackbrislawn]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

There are a couple of considerations here.

First, it seems to me Protestants are very fond of word play. That is, I don’t know any difference between recognising what the Canon is, and establishing it. Both phrases mean the same thing, just different wording. When you establish the canon, isn’t that the same thing as recognizing what writings should be in it? But Protestants hope to confuse people this way.

There were a host of early and separate Christian writings floating around in the 3rd and 4th centuries and it wasn’t easy for the faithful to know which were truly apostolic and hence inspired and from God and which weren’t. The church therefore “established” or “recognized” and made known to the people which writings were inspired and from God and hence appropriate for church usage. It is further believed that the establishment of the canon of inspired writings was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A second consideration is that western Europe was evangelized by the Roman church, meaning that western Europe received its Christianity via the Roman Catholic church. Western Europe got its very belief in God, and its belief in scripture and the canon of Scripture from the Roman Catholic church. So it is quite true to say that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. “Us” being us of western European heritage. Protestantism is a product of western Europe, so Protestantism indeed got its Bible from the Catholic church.

Without the Catholic church, we would be still pagans, or more likely, Muslim.

 

[mackbrislawn]

There’s this claim around: “The Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it.” This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

There are a couple of considerations here.

First, it seems to me Protestants are very fond of word play. That is, I don’t know any difference between recognising what the Canon is, and establishing it. Both phrases mean the same thing, just different wording. When you establish the canon, isn’t that the same thing as recognizing what writings should be in it? But Protestants hope to confuse people this way.

There were a host of early and separate Christian writings floating around in the 3rd and 4th centuries and it wasn’t easy for the faithful to know which were truly apostolic and hence inspired and from God and which weren’t. The church therefore “established” or “recognized” and made known to the people which writings were inspired and from God and therefore appropriate for church usage. It is further believed that the establishment of the canon of inspired writings was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A second consideration is that western Europe was evangelized by the Roman church, meaning that western Europe received its Christianity via the Roman Catholic church. Western Europe got its very belief in God, and its belief in scripture and the canon of Scripture from the Catholic church. So it is quite true to say that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. “Us” being us of western European heritage. Protestantism is a product of western Europe, so Protestantism indeed got its Bible from the Catholic church.

Without the Catholic church, we would be still pagans, or more likely, Muslim.