Was inspired scripture ALREADY well known before the council compiled the bible?

[mattp0625]

Pope Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible to Jerome,[2] c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[17] Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the Catholic canon, since what is thought as his list corresponds to the current Catholic canon.[2] Purporting to date from a “Council of Rome” under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called “Damasian list” which some attributed to the Decretum Gelasianum[88] gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent,[10] and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable 6th century compilation.[89][90]

This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:

[A list of books of the Old Testament …], and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.

 

[mattp0625]

Augustine of Hippo declared that one is to “prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority.” (On Christian Doctrines 2.12, chapter 8).[91]

Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 AD (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: “nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures” except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. It seems these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.

 

[commenter]

Also, the question is; could others go through a similar process and arrive at similar conclusions even today? I contend we could and we actually have. When a new “fad” talks about a “new” (many times not new at all, but rather “rediscovered”) document or manuscript and tries to put it on par with scripture, we return to analyzing the claims. As an example I’m sure we all remember is the fad of pushing “The Gospel of Thomas.”

If you mean, can people take the existing NT canon and retroactively justify it, sure, it is done all the time. Evangelicals start with the 27 book canon, figure which criteria, which priority of criteria and weighting of criteria might yield that exact canon, and then research - voila - they come up with the same canon! “See, we didn’t need any magisterium”.

If they used different criteria, or weighed or prioritized them differently, of course they would come up with different canons. Nobody knows what a NT canon is “supposed” to look like, or which criteria are the right ones, so who is to say any other canon, be it 3 books or 300, is wrong? There is no template you can compare it against.

In recent years there are movements, much stronger than a fad, to add and subtract material from the NT canon. Churches serving gay persons use bibles that omit certain passages. One movement, “A New New Testament” published a NT. They include the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and other “NT” books, not in an appendix but alongside, among books like Mathew, Mark, etc. They did not omit any of the 27 in the first edition, but the notes were so hostile to portions of the gospels and epistles, that I bet there will be subtractions in the next edition.

Their premise is that since Christians are supposedly no longer obligated to follow the rigid, prejudiced Magisterium anymore, therefore why should we keep using their outdated, culture-bound, biased NT canon? They encourage gradual introduction of the newer books (more suited for our times) into church services and Sunday School. As time goes on, I think this and other canon movements will compete against the Magisterium’s canon. For awhile, evangelicals will oppose the new canons, just as they once opposed anything but the KJV, but in the long run…

 

[Kliska]

If you mean, can people take the existing NT canon and retroactively justify it, sure, it is done all the time. Evangelicals start with the 27 book canon, figure which criteria, which priority of criteria and weighting of criteria might yield that exact canon, and then research - voila - they come up with the same canon! “See, we didn’t need any magisterium”.

If they used different criteria, or weighed or prioritized them differently, of course they would come up with different canons. Nobody knows what a NT canon is “supposed” to look like, or which criteria are the right ones, so who is to say any other canon, be it 3 books or 300, is wrong? There is no template you can compare it against.

In recent years there are movements, much stronger than a fad, to add and subtract material from the NT canon. Churches serving gay persons use bibles that omit certain passages. One movement, “A New New Testament” published a NT. They include the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and other “NT” books, not in an appendix but alongside, among books like Mathew, Mark, etc. They did not omit any of the 27 in the first edition, but the notes were so hostile to portions of the gospels and epistles, that I bet there will be subtractions in the next edition.

Their premise is that since Christians are supposedly no longer obligated to follow the rigid, prejudiced Magisterium anymore, therefore why should we keep using their outdated, culture-bound, biased NT canon? They encourage gradual introduction of the newer books (more suited for our times) into church services and Sunday School. As time goes on, I think this and other canon movements will compete against the Magisterium’s canon. For awhile, evangelicals will oppose the new canons, just as they once opposed anything but the KJV, but in the long run…

Right, but that is taking the matter to a different foundation, which perhaps it should be. I think (hopefully I’ll be corrected by the OP if needed) that the OP was asking in a way that would spur discussion of “who gave us the Bible?” question/answer. I’ve always been a bit confused when some Catholics state it was Catholics who gave everyone the Bible, when it is God Who has given us scripture, which is what we all can agree on.

There are indeed different canons right now, and we can indeed dig into the books of the Bible to figure out why they were included. The root discussion, I supposed, should be if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallibly guided in all of its official pronouncements or not, because there isn’t one agreed upon monolithic canon that Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants back. But, to answer the OP, we did have a process to check early manuscripts to see if they belonged in the Bible, or not, and we can still go through that process now with the books that were generally accepted even very early on… whether we agree or not is a different matter.

 

[benhur]

[Right, but that is taking the matter to a different foundation, which perhaps it should be. I think (hopefully I’ll be corrected by the OP if needed) that the OP was asking in a way that would spur discussion of “who gave us the Bible?” question/answer. I’ve always been a bit confused when some Catholics state it was Catholics who gave everyone the Bible, when it is God Who has given us scripture, which is what we all can agree on

.

Hi k,

Right , Vatican 2 strongly agrees with your statement, that God gave us the bible. It stresses God’s role and the apostles. The church is mentioned as the “recipient”.

I think Vat 2 was trying to avoid being sectarian (even putting ‘others’ off) , and trying to be ecumenical/universal.

I mean the church is recipient of many things: a risen Christ , and ministry of the Holy Ghost, but they are not ''Catholic".

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Blessings

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Yes, Clement of Alexandria considered many pagan writings as scripture.

He didn’t consider gnostic writings , although pagan ones yes

 

[adf417]

Right, but that is taking the matter to a different foundation, which perhaps it should be. I think (hopefully I’ll be corrected by the OP if needed) that the OP was asking in a way that would spur discussion of “who gave us the Bible?” question/answer. I’ve always been a bit confused when some Catholics state it was Catholics who gave everyone the Bible, when it is God Who has given us scripture, which is what we all can agree on.

I myself get a bit confused when we all say “Paul wrote the letter to…” or “Mark wrote the 2nd gosple” without a problem among ourselves when it was God who wrote them, right?

If Jesus is God, and if the church is His body, why is it so hard to believe His church gave us the bible, his word?

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

I myself get a bit confused when we all say “Paul wrote the letter to…” or “Mark wrote the 2nd gosple” without a problem among ourselves when it was God who wrote them, right?

Well, not technically, since they literally wrote them. God gave them His word, but it wasn’t like the Ten Commandments, which He literally wrote.

If Jesus is God, and if the church is His body, why is it so hard to believe His church gave us the bible, his word?

He gave us His word, we recognized that fact. It’s not so much the semantics of it all, it is what various individuals thinks it “proves” because it becomes; God lead the Catholic Church to the correct canon, so the Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and Protestants who don’t recognize that and because they use the Bible the Catholic Church gave them are being illogical. I find both the premises of that argument and the conclusion flawed. In other words, I think there are much better Catholic Apologetics other than “We gave you Protestants the Bible canon, hence we are the one and only.” (I’m not saying you were doing that, it’s just a common argument .)

Peace!!!

And also to you!

 

[commenter]

Hi k,

Right , Vatican 2 strongly agrees with your statement, that God gave us the bible. It stresses God’s role and the apostles. The church is mentioned as the “recipient”.

I think Vat 2 was trying to avoid being sectarian (even putting ‘others’ off) , and trying to be ecumenical/universal.

I mean the church is recipient of many things: a risen Christ , and ministry of the Holy Ghost, but they are not ''Catholic".

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Blessings

The Church is the recipient of the sacraments. But that does not eliminate the role of the priest. Likewise, the Church - all Christians - is recipient of the bible. But that does not eliminate the role of the Magisterium in publicly identifying the canon of the NT.

 

[adf417]

Well, not technically, since they literally wrote them. God gave them His word, but it wasn’t like the Ten Commandments, which He literally wrote.

And who was it that literally voted on them (or voted all the other books out)? Were they not Catholic bishops?

He gave us His word, we recognized that fact. It’s not so much the semantics of it all, it is what various individuals thinks it “proves” because it becomes; God lead the Catholic Church to the correct canon, so the Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and Protestants who don’t recognize that and because they use the Bible the Catholic Church gave them are being illogical. I find both the premises of that argument and the conclusion flawed. In other words, I think there are much better Catholic Apologetics other than “We gave you Protestants the Bible canon, hence we are the one and only.” (I’m not saying you were doing that, it’s just a common argument .)

And also to you!

Was there another church?

Peace!!!

 

[commenter]

It’s not so much the semantics of it all, it is what various individuals thinks it “proves” because it becomes; God lead the Catholic Church to the correct canon,

better to say God used the **Magisterium **to publicly identify God’s choice

so the Catholic Church is the one and only true church

I say it has the fullest measure of the Truth; others have some truth too; again, it is related to the Magisterium

, and Protestants who don’t recognize that and because they use the Bible the Catholic Church gave them are being illogical.

No, **God **gave Protestants, and every other Christian and non-Christian the Bible.
God used the Magisterium to publicly identify God’s choices for the NT canon. Without a single, hierarchical authority, the canon might have been 270 books long, and still growing, since no one had authority to close it. The incredibly short canon, the rejection of most books genuinely plausible as scripture, point towards a central authority that was accepted by Christians. A committee can’t reject books; a respected, spiritual, hierarchy can. And did.

 

[Kliska]

And who was it that literally voted on them (or voted all the other books out)? Were they not Catholic bishops?

The Orthodox have their canon(s), Catholic theirs, and Protestants theirs. There are some books included in all, some not. The Jews had already collected the OT.

Was there another church?

We don’t believe in multiple churches, but the definition of The Church you and I would have would differ. I don’t doubt Christians wrote NT scripture, received it, recognized it, and passed it around. The Magisterium didn’t just pray about it, they studied the manuscripts and put them through the wringer. As stated upthread, others have done similar text crit to check them.

Peace!!!

Grace and peace to you.

better to say God used the **Magisterium **to publicly identify God’s choice

I say it has the fullest measure of the Truth; others have some truth too; again, it is related to the Magisterium

No, **God **gave Protestants, and every other Christian and non-Christian the Bible.
God used the Magisterium to publicly identify God’s choices for the NT canon. Without a single, hierarchical authority, the canon might have been 270 books long, and still growing, since no one had authority to close it. The incredibly short canon, the rejection of most books genuinely plausible as scripture, point towards a central authority that was accepted by Christians. A committee can’t reject books; a respected, spiritual, hierarchy can. And did.

As stated above, we don’t all recognize the same set of books, nor do the Orthodox churches. I respect they way you explain it, however.

 

[adf417]

The Orthodox have their canon(s), Catholic theirs, and Protestants theirs. There are some books included in all, some not. The Jews had already collected the OT.

We don’t believe in multiple churches, but the definition of The Church you and I would have would differ. I don’t doubt Christians wrote NT scripture, received it, recognized it, and passed it around. The Magisterium didn’t just pray about it, they studied the manuscripts and put them through the wringer. As stated upthread, others have done similar text crit to check them.

Grace and peace to you.

As stated above, we don’t all recognize the same set of books, nor do the Orthodox churches. I respect they way you explain it, however.

You dont have to answer the questions but it sure would be nice!

Peace abound!!!

 

[Kliska]

You dont have to answer the questions but it sure would be nice!

Peace abound!!!

I did, above.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[Kliska]

Thank you to all who interacted with me, I’m bowing out now after apologizing. I think I was “mindreading” replies in an uncharitable way. I’m sorry for misconstruing anyone’s points, please forgive me for having done so.

 

[benhur]

The Church is the recipient of the sacraments. But that does not eliminate the role of the priest. Likewise, the Church - all Christians - is recipient of the bible. But that does not eliminate the role of the Magisterium in publicly identifying the canon of the NT.

HI c,

Understand. Of course the church can interpret what she receives, and discern canon. We are just pondering the validity of saying it is a “Catholic” book , or saying the CC gave us baptism or “communion” or marriage.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And who was it that literally voted on them (or voted all the other books out)? Were they not Catholic bishops?

Was there another church?

Peace!!!

well no ,but she has gone by a few names.

 

[mattp0625]

HI c,

Understand. Of course the church can interpret what she receives, and discern canon. We are just pondering the validity of saying it is a “Catholic” book , or saying the CC gave us baptism or “communion” or marriage.

Blessings

Augustine was not a Protestant. He was a Catholic bishop who lead the Synod of Hippo where canon was affirmed. A high view is scripture does not mean sola scriptura

Neither was Jerome a Protestant.

Which Protestant existed before the 16th century that contributed to the canon or writing of scripture ?

Bishop Linus existed in the first century. He succeeded Peter.
So did Bishop Ignatius of Antioch.
Bishops are Catholic

 

[benhur]

better to say God used the **Magisterium **to publicly identify God’s choice

I say it has the fullest measure of the Truth; others have some truth too; again, it is related to the Magisterium

No, **God **gave Protestants, and every other Christian and non-Christian the Bible.
God used the Magisterium to publicly identify God’s choices for the NT canon. Without a single, hierarchical authority, the canon might have been 270 books long, and still growing, since no one had authority to close it. The incredibly short canon, the rejection of most books genuinely plausible as scripture, point towards a central authority that was accepted by Christians. A committee can’t reject books; a respected, spiritual, hierarchy can. And did.

Hi c,

Understand your point and you have expressed quite well. Just kindly disagree that without the magisterium meeting officially she was lost in a plethora of spiritual books.

Now if you are pleading councilarism ( a committee, of bishops- even Catholic bishops) on the matter , ok. Stiil, then the canon matter was not fully settled til Trent.

Lastly, the Writ (OT) that justified, supported, blossomed the church at first did not have their magisterium meet officially to recognize canon for millennia plus.

Blessings

PS_ a certain committee headed by Eusebius is thought to have put together the first 50 bibles for Constantine around 325 AD

 

[benhur]

Augustine was not a Protestant. He was a Catholic bishop who lead the Synod of Hippo where canon was affirmed. A high view is scripture does not mean sola scriptura

Neither was Jerome a Protestant.

Which Protestant existed before the 16th century that contributed to the canon or writing of scripture ?

Bishop Linus existed in the first century. He succeeded Peter.
So did Bishop Ignatius of Antioch.
Bishops are Catholic

Hi matt,

Of course the bishops were Catholic , or known as such by this time.

Of course Catholics did not become known as "protestants’’ till the reformation. P’s consider Catholicism to be part of their heritage, just as surely as we all consider Judaism as part of our heritage.

Bottom line, as I suggested the church began with several names that were not Catholic.

Also what is Catholic today is not exactly what was Catholic by its first users of that name. Just as Protestantism is certainly more or differing to its first proponents that were at the very first “Lutheran”.

Blessings