Where do Protestants say we received the Biblical Canon?

[Aquila_Lucis]

Primarily, I am hoping that some intelligent non-Catholics browsing here can help to answer this, though any Catholics with legitimate answers would be welcome to help explain, as well.

It has seemed to me that, given that Protestant apologists will try and debunk Catholic doctrine on the basis that there is not an explicit Scritural refernce to it, the biggest hole in that argument is there is, then, no explanation as to how we (that is to say humanity, and specifically in tis situation, Protestants) received the Biblical Canon. How do Protestants know that the table of contents in their Bibles contains a complete list? Or that the one in Catholic Bibles contains so-called “unauthorized” additons? How do they know that what is, in fact, in their Bible is truly Inspired? There is no set of instructions within anyone’s Bible (so far as I am aware) which gives a formula for determining what is or is not Inspired Scripture. Therefor, the Canon itself must have come from outside the Bible, and would thus contradict the notion that things not explicitly mentioned within Scripture are fallible.

So, what, then, is the Protestant answer to this question? Where did the Canon come from?

 

[gigi4747]

Great question - I’m also looking forward to the answer. God bless

 

[JerryZ]

:bigyikes: What? You telling me it didn’t drop straight down from Heaven?


Ok then I’ll wait for the correct answer then!

 

[skigirl1689]

It depends on what denomination. Lutherans accept the canon and many other traditions of Christianity originating from the early Church Councils, hence the Catholic Church. We even accept the same three major creeds: the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian,

 

[TravisJTH]

Primarily, I am hoping that some intelligent non-Catholics browsing here can help to answer this, though any Catholics with legitimate answers would be welcome to help explain, as well.

It has seemed to me that, given that Protestant apologists will try and debunk Catholic doctrine on the basis that there is not an explicit Scritural refernce to it, the biggest hole in that argument is there is, then, no explanation as to how we (that is to say humanity, and specifically in this situation, Protestants) received the Biblical Canon. How do Protestants know that the table of contents in their Bibles contains a complete list? Or that the one in Catholic Bibles contains so-called “unauthorized” additons? How do they know that what is, in fact, in their Bible is truly Inspired? There is no set of instructions within anyone’s Bible (so far as I am aware) which gives a formula for determining what is or is not Inspired Scripture. Therefor, the Canon itself must have come from outside the Bible, and would thus contradict the notion that things not explicitly mentioned within Scripture are fallible.

So, what, then, is the Protestant answer to this question? Where did the Canon come from?

The idea that the Catholic Church can claim to be the only one represented in the Book of Acts or at the Nicene Council of 325 is highly debatable. We could argue whether the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church or the other way around in the Great Schism. The Catholic Church’s list of what books should be in the Bible wasn’t established beyond revision until the Council of Trent in 1546. This was shortly after the Protestant Church and Church of England had already broken away.

For the most part, the Old Testament is taken from the Torah. Jesus confirmed many of the books of the Old Testament as he quoted them in his teachings. The New Testament parameter seems to be writings by first or second generation apostels of the early church. There is also the belief that people who chose the books to compile in the Bible were guided by God through the Holy Spirit. (I would assume that is the case regardless of whether were talking about the Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Bible)

Personally, I cannot say whether the Apocryphal (all or in part) was God inspired. There are a lot of books like the Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren, which I feel are God inspired, but would not place in the Bible or on the same level as any books in the Bible.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It has seemed to me that, given that Protestant apologists will try and debunk Catholic doctrine on the basis that there is not an explicit Scritural refernce [sic] to it,

I think the only Protestants that would argue this would be fundamentalists and some Evangelicals.

the biggest hole in that argument is there is, then, no explanation as to how we (that is to say humanity, and specifically in tis situation, Protestants) received the Biblical Canon.

I don’t think one could say the canon was “received”–as post #3 notes, a list didn’t fall out of the sky one day.

How do Protestants know that the table of contents in their Bibles contains a complete list?

They don’t. Just as Catholics don’t or Greek Orthodox don’t or any other of the apostolic churches don’t. Nor do the Churches even particularly agree on a theology of canon. A definite biblical canon, for whatever reason, was never divinely revealed, otherwise there would have been a consensus in the ancient church, which there was not. That having been said, the churches agree on the vast majority of their biblical texts.

For a comparison of the churches’ canons see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

(You’ll need to scroll down.)

In much the same way, there is no one particular copy of the New Testament that was revealed as divine or “correct.” The New Testament that we use and place our confidence in doesn’t even exist as a manuscript in the material world–it’s a agglomeration of a number of different texts where variants are judged correct or incorrect by scholars. But the scholars wouldn’t all agree. We don’t know which manuscript is the “correct” one–or even whether such a thing as a correct manuscript exists or has ever existed. This has not been revealed.

The text of the Old Testament works somewhat differently, but here again, just for example we don’t judge whether the > 10% shorter Hebrew version of Jeremiah is the “correct” Jeremiah versus the longer (Greek) version. We simply use the shorter version by consensus. We don’t know that the Hebrew version is the correct one by divine revelation.

How do they know that what is, in fact, in their Bible is truly Inspired? There is no set of instructions within anyone’s Bible (so far as I am aware) which gives a formula for determining what is or is not Inspired Scripture. Therefor, the Canon itself must have come from outside the Bible, and would thus contradict the notion that things not explicitly mentioned within Scripture are fallible.

It seems reasonable to conclude that those parts of scripture which Christianity has pretty much always and everywhere accepted (e.g., the four Gospels) should be accepted as scripture. To argue that one particular group has a “correct” list over another group that doesn’t would say that the revelatory activity of the Holy Spirit has been somehow monopolized by one particular minority corner of Christianity.

So, what, then, is the Protestant answer to this question? Where did the Canon come from?

History shows that each group of Christians has compiled their own Bible over time by consensus. They agree on most texts.

 

[bogeydogg]

Primarily, I am hoping that some intelligent non-Catholics browsing here can help to answer this, though any Catholics with legitimate answers would be welcome to help explain, as well.

It has seemed to me that, given that Protestant apologists will try and debunk Catholic doctrine on the basis that there is not an explicit Scritural refernce to it, the biggest hole in that argument is there is, then, no explanation as to how we (that is to say humanity, and specifically in tis situation, Protestants) received the Biblical Canon. How do Protestants know that the table of contents in their Bibles contains a complete list? Or that the one in Catholic Bibles contains so-called “unauthorized” additons? How do they know that what is, in fact, in their Bible is truly Inspired? There is no set of instructions within anyone’s Bible (so far as I am aware) which gives a formula for determining what is or is not Inspired Scripture. Therefor, the Canon itself must have come from outside the Bible, and would thus contradict the notion that things not explicitly mentioned within Scripture are fallible.

So, what, then, is the Protestant answer to this question? Where did the Canon come from?

Actually conservative Lutherans would argue that there is no ‘Canon’ as such. Rather that there are books of Apostolic origin and authority that were received as such by the Bishops. However the notion of a “List” would be thought of as nonsense since the Church has always received these books as Scripture from the time of Peter. Therefore the notion of a Canon having been determined by the Church is not possible because the Bible is the sole authority and rule of faith for all men. Thus the Church does not have authority over Scripture, Scripture has authority over the Church.

God Bless

PS conservative Lutherans would also argue that there are 73 and not 66 books in the Bible.

 

[Reuben_J]

For a comparison of the churches’ canons see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

(You’ll need to scroll down.)

In much the same way, there is no one particular copy of the New Testament that was revealed as divine or “correct.” The New Testament that we use and place our confidence in doesn’t even exist as a manuscript in the material world–it’s a agglomeration of a number of different texts where variants are judged correct or incorrect by scholars. But the scholars wouldn’t all agree. We don’t know which manuscript is the “correct” one–or even whether such a thing as a correct manuscript exists or has ever existed. This has not been revealed.

The text of the Old Testament works somewhat differently, but here again, just for example we don’t judge whether the > 10% shorter Hebrew version of Jeremiah is the “correct” Jeremiah versus the longer (Greek) version. We simply use the shorter version by consensus. We don’t know that the Hebrew version is the correct one by divine revelation.

It seems reasonable to conclude that those parts of scripture which Christianity has pretty much always and everywhere accepted (e.g., the four Gospels) should be accepted as scripture. To argue that one particular group has a “correct” list over another group that doesn’t would say that the revelatory activity of the Holy Spirit has been somehow monopolized by one particular minority corner of Christianity.

History shows that each group of Christians has compiled their own Bible over time by consensus. They agree on most texts.

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. “Canon” (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

 

[Coemgenus_O]

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

Yes!

 

[COPLAND_3]

I am a former Southern Baptist, and for a while I was not informed on how the canon came about, but I did start seeking answers concerning how the Bible came about, and studying about how the canon was defined is one of the key factors that led me to Catholicism.

It has been quite a while back, probably 15 years ago, so my memory is a little foggy on all the details, but as I began to study it from a Protestant resource, it claimed that the Old Testament canon was determine at the council of Jamnia, by Jews who rejected Christ might I add. Then for the New Testament canon, the source mentioned a list by Athanasius, by a Catholic Bishop might I add. I remember while being a Baptist that it was a little odd that my Bible had Catholic fingerprints on it. I remember that there were a few more things that it mentioned, but the study left me with lots more questions and a doubt that the canon was absolute, because then I started feeling a sense that there had to be authority outside of Scripture.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. “Canon” (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Except for the Council of Florence, what you are listing above were not councils at all but actually local synods of bishops–and their decisions were only accepted only within the Latinate church. The rest of Christendom had their own ideas about the canon.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

What errors were abounding concerning the biblical canon that sprung up at the time of the Council of Florence?

 

[Cranch]

It’s kind of amusing to read the pronouns “She” here a lot…as in “*her *leadership” and “she discerned”…when the bible books were mostly or all written by males, mostly about the deeds of males, and when it came time to decide which books were to be included in the canon–all those decisions were made by groups of males (the bishops at the meetings?)…and then in the church, all the teachings are taught by male priests…and the head of the church, the pope, is a man…

So to hear the pronoun “She” sounds so…oddly contrary to the ear.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that the Church is considered the Bride of Christ?

 

[Cranch]

It’s kind of amusing to read the pronouns “She” here a lot…as in “*her *leadership” and “she discerned”…when the bible books were mostly or all written by males, mostly about the deeds of males, and when it came time to decide which books were to be included in the canon–all those decisions were made by groups of males (the bishops at the meetings?)…and then in the church, all the teachings are taught by male priests…and the head of the church, the pope, is a man…

So to hear the pronoun “She” sounds so…oddly contrary to the ear.

Perhaps you have not heard that the Church is the Bride of Christ?

 

[ahs]

…For the most part, the Old Testament is taken from the Torah. Jesus confirmed many of the books of the Old Testament as he quoted them in his teachings. The New Testament parameter seems to be writings by first or second generation apostels of the early church. There is also the belief that people who chose the books to compile in the Bible were guided by God through the Holy Spirit. (I would assume that is the case regardless of whether were talking about the Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Bible)

Personally, I cannot say whether the Apocryphal (all or in part) was God inspired. There are a lot of books like the Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren, which I feel are God inspired, but would not place in the Bible or on the same level as any books in the Bible.

Here’s some good explanation of the Canon of Scripture:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm (Old TEstament)
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm (New Testament)

…The New Testament that we use and place our confidence in doesn’t even exist as a manuscript in the material world–it’s a agglomeration of a number of different texts where variants are judged correct or incorrect by scholars. But the scholars wouldn’t all agree. We don’t know which manuscript is the “correct” one–or even whether such a thing as a correct manuscript exists or has ever existed. This has not been revealed…

Then how do we know if the books in our Bible are the infallible Word of God?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Then how do we know if the books in our Bible are the infallible Word of God?

Because there exists no divine revelation as to WHICH of the myriad of texts available is THE inspired text (on top of which are issues related to the biblical canon itself), this would be a logical impossibility—at least if I understand the meaning of your question.

In this respect, Christianity differs substantially from Islam, which asserts a specific divinely inspired text.

 

[pablope]

The idea that the Catholic Church can claim to be the only one represented in the Book of Acts or at the Nicene Council of 325 is highly debatable.

Which church do you think existed in the books of Acts? In 325? There was only one Church then…can it be the protestant churches?

The Catholic Church’s list of what books should be in the Bible wasn’t established beyond revision until the Council of Trent in 1546.

 

[ahs]

(from ahs) Then how do we know if the books in our Bible are the infallible Word of God?

Because there exists no divine revelation as to WHICH of the myriad of texts available is THE inspired text (on top of which are issues related to the biblical canon itself), this would be a logical impossibility—at least if I understand the meaning of your question.

In this respect, Christianity differs substantially from Islam, which asserts a specific divinely inspired text.

So, you are saying that it is impossible to know if the books within our Christian Bible are really the Inspired/Infallible Word of God?

 

[Razanir]

Because there exists no divine revelation as to WHICH of the myriad of texts available is THE inspired text (on top of which are issues related to the biblical canon itself), this would be a logical impossibility—at least if I understand the meaning of your question.

In this respect, Christianity differs substantially from Islam, which asserts a specific divinely inspired text.

We do assert a divinely inspired text. It’s just we don’t necessarily say the list of 73 books we use is divinely inspired.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, you are saying that it is impossible to know if the books within our Christian Bible are really the Inspired/Infallible Word of God?

Since the biblical canon never been divinely revealed and since the universal church has never agreed on what it is, basically yes.

Considering that no two manuscripts of the Bible are the same–which particular one is the inspired one? And if all the ancient churches had agreed on the canon, which they didn’t, they didn’t agree on a particular text.

Another way to pose this question is to ask: Where is the inspired manuscript of the Bible? Is it in a particular museum? Can you point it out? Did it ever exist? If so, when and where?

It’s illogical to assert that the Bible is an infallible text but then not be able to point to which manuscript of the Bible you’re referring to.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

We do assert a divinely inspired text. It’s just we don’t necessarily say the list of 73 books we use is divinely inspired.

So which are the divinely inspired parts? Or is this essentially not defined as part of revelation?