Which Bible? Whose Canon?

[Katholikos]

Which Bible? Whose canon?

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

The Bible is not a continuous book. It is a collection of writings produced by different people at different times, written from different locations for different audiences and purposes. It took about 1,100 years to complete. Various Christian groups have different collections. They all call their collection “the Bible." For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s Bible contains 81 writings, the Catholic Bible 73, and the Protestant Bible only 66.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that the Bible (the “Scriptures”) is the sole rule of faith. Obviously, if the rule is Scripture Alone, one’s “faith” (beliefs) will vary, depending upon which Bible one accepts as the “Word of God.” Protestants, what is your basis for deciding that important question?

Christians believe the Bible is “inspired.” As was pointed out, the Bible is a collection of writings. But there is no God-given list of the writings that belong in the Bible. So we must answer the question: whose authority do we accept? If you are a Protestant, your answer has to be Martin Luther and his fellow Reformers; most Christians prior to the 16th century considered the Word of God to be the 73 writings first canonized by the Catholic Church in 382 A.D. The Catholic authority is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in Jerusalem at Pentecost in 33 A.D. The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16, et al.).

Luther subtracted 11 books from the canon of the Bible – 7 plus parts of Esther and Daniel from the OT and 4 from the NT. “Reformers” after him accepted the unabridged 27 books from the NT (not Luther’s reduced 23), but they let Luther’s cuts to the OT stand. That’s why there are only 66-books in the Protestant Bible.

Which of the several collections is the “real” Bible? Have some of the written Words of God “passed away” (Mark 13:31)? Have some been added? And what is your evidence?

Is the written Word of God limited to what Luther said it was? Why do Protestants accept Luther’s cuts to the OT but not the NT? Was Luther only half right?

JMJ Jay

 

[RNRobert]

This might be slightly off topic, but another forum member by the name of BobCatholic once posed 4 questions to a fundamentalist Christian:

bobcatholic:

My “infamous 4 questions” are as following:
Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?
   The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.
   According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions
   Now, let us Catholics NOT answer these questions for our protestant brothers and sisters. We don’t want to share that part of the TRUTH with them YET since they cannot accept it now.
   The reason is: The implications of honestly answering these questions spells doom for a certain man-made Tradition that makes null the Word of God, that protestants hold on to.

I posed these questions a couple times myself on these forums and gave them to a Catholic coworker to give to his Protestant wife and in-laws. So far, no one has even attempted to answer them.

 

[RobedWithLight]

It is clear that unless any Sola Scripturalist can present us with an **infallible table of contents, **containing a specific number of books which are truly inspired, then there is no way this question can be answered without appealing to the Catholic Council of Carthage of 397 A.D., which determined the final canon.

Gerry

 

[Buzzard]

RobedWithLight:

It is clear that unless any Sola Scripturalist can present us with an **infallible table of contents, **containing a specific number of books which are truly inspired, then there is no way this question can be answered without appealing to the Catholic Council of Carthage of 397 A.D., which determined the final canon.

Gerry

It doesn’t
But
Paul does say this about the Jews {vs} The Church of Rome

~{Romans 3:1}~
What advantage then hath the Jew?
or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly,
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

the Council of Carthage didn’t have the Authority to determine the canon of the Oracles of God
so and decision they made was mote

 

[Little_Mary]

Buzzard:

It doesn’t
But
Paul does say this about the Jews {vs} The Church of Rome

the Council of Carthage didn’t have the Authority to determine the canon of the Oracles of God
so and decision they made was mote

Gibberish, I say

What on earth does the passage you cited have to do with the topic?

 

[DavidFilmer]

RobedWithLight:

… the Catholic Council of Carthage of 397 A.D., which determined the final canon.

Actually, Trent made that determination. It was not dogmatically defined prior to Trent (and it had never needed to be, until Martin Luther came along).

 

[Buzzard]

Little Mary:

Gibberish, I say

What on earth does the passage you cited have to do with the topic?

Is says that the church especially Rome
does not have the Authority to determine any “Canon” of Moses and the Prophets
These were committed to the Jews

so any decision made at the Council of Carthage
about the Old Testament is mote
don’t mean squate

 

[DavidFilmer]

Buzzard:

Is says that the church especially Rome does not have the Authority to determine any “Canon” of Moses and the Prophets These were committed to the Jews

The Catholic Church IS the Jewish Church. Or, at least, what God caused the Jewish Church to become.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that God established a Jewish Church and then started all over with a Christian Church (and these are somehow two different things). “Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. I come not to destroy, but to fulfill.” God established only ONE Church, the process of which began with Abraham and ended with Jesus. The “Church of Abraham” became the Christian Church by Divine covenant. Those who rejected the final covenant continued to practice an incomplete version of their faith and continued to call themselves Jews. But, spiritually, the Christian Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith and exercises full authority to determine the Canon of ALL Scripture, Old and New.

 

[Buzzard]

Then “Why” does Paul say this
Speciffically too the Roman Church
30+/- years After Pentacost and the start of the church

~{Romans 3:1}~
Paul Asks Rome

What advantage then hath the Jew?
or what profit is there of circumcision?
Now Paul Answers

2 Much every way: chiefly,
The Reason

because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Not to the Roman Church nor to any other “Church” , but to the circumsision = Jews

 

[DavidFilmer]

I will answer your “WHY” question. But, first, I wish to ask you a question, to understand your perspective.

Do you believe that God established a Jewish Church with Abraham (and, notably, Moses), and then decided to start all over again with a Christian Church?

Or do you believe that the Christian Church is the fullfillment of what God began with Abraham?

 

[RobedWithLight]

DavidFilmer:

Actually, Trent made that determination. It was not dogmatically defined prior to Trent (and it had never needed to be, until Martin Luther came along).

I agree. Trent **did **make a final reaffirmation of the full canon as traditionally accepted.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

Buzzard:

Is says that the church especially Rome
does not have the Authority to determine any “Canon” of Moses and the Prophets
These were committed to the Jews

so any decision made at the Council of Carthage
about the Old Testament is mote
don’t mean squate

Indeed. Jewish religious leaders by their own authority in the Council of Jamnia in 95 A.D. did remove books from the Old Testament which they felt supported Christian teaching, that is, the Jews were upset that the Septuagint [The Old Testament] was then being used by the Christians to justify their own teachings.

What authority did the Jews have back then, many decades after the birth of Christianity?

Luther it seems, used this decision made by Jews to justify his own rejection of seven books.

If the Jews decide now to remove Isaiah because of its references to the Virgin birth of Christ, which Catholics often cite, would Protestants now follow their lead and remove Isaiah as well?

Gerry

 

[Buzzard]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=315953&postcount=12
Post #12

RobedWithLight:

What authority did the Jews have back then, many decades after the birth of Christianity?

Gerry

I don’t know, ask Paul,
for he wrote 30 years after the birth of the “Church”

~{Romans 3:1}~
*What advantage then hath the Jew?
or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly,
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
As to their misapplying, misinterpretations, rejection of Christ,
ect. ect. ect

3 For what if some did not believe?

shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?*

 

[Psalm45_9]

Only, which Jews are we talking about? The Sadducess only used the Torah, to this day, the Samaritans only use the Torah. The Pharisees used the canon that was similar to what the European Jews used today, the Alexandrian Jews used to larger LXX canon, which the Ethiopian Jews still use today. However, all of them reject the New Testament. Let me think here. All of the books in the LXX were written by Jews, all of the New Testament were written by Jews.

 

[RNRobert]

Buzzard on the ‘It is written’ thread that you started:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22823

I asked you numerous questions regarding ‘Scripture alone’ which you neglected to answer. For brevity’s sake I’m not going to ask all of them here. Just ask the 4 questions I posed in post #2 of this thread using your Bible alone.

Thank you.

 

[metal1633]

1. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?

Speaking of Matthew…Question 5…

Where does it say that Matthew wrote the Gospel with his name on it?

 

[Catholic_Tom]

metal1633:

Speaking of Matthew…Question 5…

Where does it say that Matthew wrote the Gospel with his name on it?

hey, where is information about these different endings to the gospel…how much different is it? is it only minor?

 

[RNRobert]

Catholic Tom:

hey, where is information about these different endings to the gospel…how much different is it? is it only minor?

Don’t know for sure about the different endings to matthew (as I said in the post I didn’t originate these questions). However, regarding the Gospels of Mark and John, many scripture scholars believe that the last chapter of each of these was added later. However, they are still considered Scripture by the Church.

 

[RNRobert]

metal1633:

Speaking of Matthew…Question 5…

Where does it say that Matthew wrote the Gospel with his name on it?

Come to think of it, none of the Gospels tells who wrote them…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Buzzard,
The Jews profit because they have a pre-existing relationship with God that the Gentiles (the uncircumcised) do not. They already have much of the final deposit of Divine Revelation. But the fact that the “oracles of God” have been “committed” to the Jews does not mean that they have some sort of ultimate, irrevocable authority to determine and interpret the canon of Scripture.