When was the Bible put together?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
At what point in time was the entire Bible, old and new testaments, put together and declared inspired?
 
Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.
Click to expand...
Source
 
Seems strange that God would write out the 10 Commandments himself and present them but leave the Bible cannon unclear, requiring centuries of argument to decide the contents.
 
KevinK said:
Seems strange that God would write out the 10 Commandments himself and present them but leave the Bible cannon unclear, requiring centuries of argument to decide the contents.
Click to expand...
I apologize if this is facetious, but why stop there? Why do we even need a Bible? Why not guarantee salvation? Heck, why even make us in the first place, just plop us in heaven and skip the theatrics, right? The point of my rhetorical questions being, we can always demand God does one more thing for us.

To reply to your statement though, the 10 commandments are not the entirety of the Torah, and I can’t tell if you’re arguing that because the 10 commandments were written by the “finger of God” that it validates the OT or that the “finger of God” should’ve written the whole Bible. So I suppose I’d ask, how were the Torah and Tanakh compiled? Do you think there was instantaneous, unanimous agreement or might there have been some dissension? In order to believe it’s the Word of God, you necessarily have to accept that the decisions made in its compilation were divinely inspired (and there are verses in the gospels that would attest to this, but that’s another thread). Otherwise, feel free to dissent now, but I don’t think you can claim infallibility in modifying or deciding your own canon as the Church could.
 
yankeesouth said:
There are a few books out there with the whole story leading up to Trent but here is a good free resource…

Where we got the bible
Click to expand...
Awesome resource, thanks! I’d mention this quote from your source in conjunction with my first post at the top:
This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable, and which continued to influence all other versions, and to hold the chief place among Christians down to the Reformation. I say the ‘official’ text, because the Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree, stamping it as the only recognised and authoritative Version allowed to Catholics. ‘If anyone does not receive the entire books with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, as sacred and canonical … let him be anathema.’
…
and what I wish to drive home, is that they got these books from Rome, that without the Roman Catholic Church they would not have got them, and that the decrees of Carthage, 397 and 419 A.D., when all Christianity was Roman Catholic—reaffirmed by the Council of Florence, 1442, under Pope Eugenius IV, and the Council of Trent, 1546—these decrees of the Roman Church, and these only are the means and the channel and the authority which Almighty God has used to hand down to us His written Word.
…
From that date all through the centuries this was the Christian’s Bible. The Church never admitted any other; and at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, and the Council of the Vatican in the nineteenth, she renewed her anathemas against all who should deny or dispute this collection of books as the inspired word of God.
…
It was a translation, of course, from the Latin Vulgate, which had been declared by the Council of Trent to be the authorised text of Scripture for the Church.
Click to expand...
 
How do you know the canon debate is over with?
In the 1800s the Mormons identified other books as inspired scripture as well. Who’s to say they are wrong? Mormonism is a biblical religion, if you accept their canon. Even if you don’t respect their views or canon, here is a canon from highly respected sources - put together by mainline, liberal scholars, including bishops and the president of one large denomination.


Who is to say they, or the Mormons, are wrong? Unless you rely on the Magisterium, you really are not on solid ground to reject either the Book of Mormon or the New New Testament, which is now being introduced into some Sunday schools and worship services.
 
commenter said:
Unless you rely on the Magisterium, you really are not on solid ground to reject either the Book of Mormon or the New New Testament, which is now being introduced into some Sunday schools and worship services.
Click to expand...
And Catholics believe that the scriptures dictate a magisterium. Protestants and their derivatives (which includes Mormons who use the KJV Bible, I believe) do not. Therefore the root question is whether the magisterium is valid or not. If it is, then the discussion is over and Catholics have the entirety of the inspired Bible. If it’s not, then this discussion of supremacy is worth having. I won’t get into that here though since there are a million threads on it.
 
You’re kidding, aren’t you. This is a Catholic website. Do you honestly expect Catholics to accept the Book of Mormon on an equal footing with the New Testament?🤣
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
At what point in time was the entire Bible, old and new testaments, put together and declared inspired?
Click to expand...
While not an ecumenical council,
Pope Damasus I, and The council of Rome in the year 382, defined all 73 books definitively. That canon didn’t change, and was validated by the local councils, that followed (Carthage x2 & Hippo) and 2 ecumenical councils (Florence, and Trent)
 
Yes, there were many councils starting in the 4th century that “declared” the bible. But, as Catholics depend on apostolic tradition and the magesterium over scripture alone, the scriptures were only secondary and not as important as they are to the sola scripturists today.

See, if the only thing you have is the bible, man, you better make sure that the bible is true as your whole faith follows from it. So, we’d better be sure that all books that belong in there are there, would hate to miss out on a sacred scripture. And, we’d also want to make darn sure that any book that doesn’t belong in there isn’t in there.

It was at the council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Revolution, that infallibly declared the bible. But, seemingly, that didn’t do much for the protestants as they made up their own books of the bible at the time. The first council of Trent just solidified the books of the bible that the catholics weren’t that worried about in the first place.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
You’re kidding, aren’t you. This is a Catholic website. Do you honestly expect Catholics to accept the Book of Mormon on an equal footing with the New Testament?🤣
Click to expand...
Of course not. But I am not kidding. I am pointing out the logical conclusion of the train of thought that “we don’t need the Magisterium, we rely on the bible”. I have read lots of arguments by Protestants, and a few liberal nuns, that the canon arose spontaneously, from “the community”. If that were the case then the canon would likely have 300 books, and counting.

Without the magisterium there would have been no authority in the ancient church, or for that matter no authority in Joseph Smith’s time, or now, to reject proposed books from the bible. Only an established, central authority can do that. Protestants historically have accepted the Magisterium’s NT canon but not recognizing the visible channel through which God’s will was communicated to His people. I think, as time goes on, the small group of liberal Protestants, and a few anti-Magisterium Catholics, will be adding books, such as Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas, to more bibles. They also will be subtracting some of Jesus’ “harsh” teaching, and definitely Paul’s teaching about marriage.

Canon modification is limited to colleges and a few churches right now, but I think it will spread.
BTW, of the 3 identified baptized Catholics who are on the committee for "A New New Testament, 1 is an ex priest, and 2 are former presidents of the LCWR. I suspect they all rejected the magisterium years ago, but not until 2013 did they take the difficult, logical next step: reject the magisterium’s NT canon. But more will take that final step.
 
Last edited:
KevinK said:
Seems strange that God would write out the 10 Commandments himself and present them but leave the Bible cannon unclear, requiring centuries of argument to decide the contents.
Click to expand...
The other books (dozens of Gospels, hundreds of epistles,the Protoevangelicum of St. John, and some others) weren’t all rejected; it’s that the canon is those that were approved and used in liturgy. The Protoevangelicum is influential to this day, and the source of much of what we believe about Mary and her life.

The crowing perversity of “Sola scripture! we reject the apostolic succession!” is that what they call “scripture” is entirely dependent upon the teaching authority of the bishops of the unified Catholic and Orthodox church . . .

😱

Also, the canon is slightly larger for some of the EO and EC churches.
commenter said:
Who is to say they, or the Mormons, are wrong?
Click to expand...
Ohh, lessee . . . the Catholic churches, the Orthodox churches, God . . . even the protestants . . .

hawk
 
I just had a look at Taussig’s “New NT” at Amazon.com. All 27 NT books are there, in a slightly modified order, interspersed with a similar number of what most people would call apocryphal writings. The question naturally arises, Of what value are these apocryphal writings, and what does the reader gain from having his NT expanded with the accretion of this material? Here’s a sample from one of them, picked more or less at random. It’s a whole chapter from the Gospel of Thomas (p. 15):

7.1. Jesus said: “Blessed is the lion which the person eats – and the lion becomes a person. Cursed is the person whom the lion eats – and the lion becomes a person.”

I ask you, @commenter, what is your frank assessment of this excerpt?

 
Last edited:
My assessment of that excerpt: It’s a piece of ****
But A New New Testament is just the logical conclusion to sola scriptura. Protestants argue that the individual can find guidance and inspiration without a magisterium, just by reading the bible alone. Right now, this leads to a problem, how do you know which bible verse (in the existing NT canon) applies? One individual relies on Romans for this particular question, but another relies on James, and reaches a different conclusion. It was kind of bad when they all used one translation, but different translations lead to different conclusions, too.

But if the individual can choose which verse applies within these 27 books, why can’t they choose outside that template? John might find the gospel of Mary inspiring, Bill might say no, but the gospel of Thomas meets HIS needs. For that matter, if St. Paul’s teachings about sexuality and marriage are a problem for me, I can drop those verses from my bible. This is already happening.

Even within “A New New Testament” there was disagreement in the voting. There is nothing to stop 30 different editors from choosing 30 different canons.

I predict in a few decades most Protestants or their congregations will choose their own unique canon - maybe from a menu: choose 3 to 5 gospels, one of the various books of Acts, anywhere from 9 to 29 epistles, which could be familiar or ones you never heard of, maybe throw in some apocolyptic book - Revelations, or one of many others - if you are into that.

Those who still cling to the old fashioned 27 book canon will be labelled fundamentalists.
 
When I commission my personalized New New Testament, one book I’m going to include is the Institution of Festivus:

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top