Which Bible? Whose Canon?

[RobedWithLight]

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

I’m sorry but honestly, that isn’t an answer to the question I posed to you specifically.

Inasmuch as you are using St. Paul’s quote, I assume you have a reason for doing so, that is, a clear, rational justification for the scriptural quote you used, and therefore I had expected that you would at least be kind enough to educate us as to what you meant by it, and how it applies to the topic on hand.

Gerry

 

[Katholikos]

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

Bull-oney, Buzzard.

The Palestinian rabbis at Jamnia c. 90-100 A.D. rejected the Septuagint (LXX) because it became the scripture of the Catholic Church. It was used in the synagogues in the first century. The Church inherited the Septuagint from Jesus and the Apostles. The rabbis also cursed Christ and condemned the Christian Scriptures – i.e., the writings about Jesus that would later become the New Testament.

So, if they are the Oracles of God, which you interpret as having the authority to determine Scripture for Christians, then you must reject the NT. After all, the Oracles of God spoke – some 20 centuries ago! You have nothing but the Hebrew scriptures!

The authority of the Jews passed to Jesus Christ in the New Covenant. Jesus gave His full authority to the Church that he established for the salvation of the world. He said the Church speaks for Him (Luke 10:16).

The Catholic Church is the New Israel - Galatians 6:16.

See also Romans 11:26, James 1:1.

The Church is the House of Jacob, which is another term for Israel (Luke 1:33).

A little knowledge of history does a body a world of good.

JMJ Jay

 

[Des]

2 Much every way

: chiefly, *because that **unto them were committed the oracles of God. ****
The key word here is committed.(Past tense)

 

[RobedWithLight]

Katholikos:

Bull-oney, Buzzard.

So, if they are the Oracles of God, which you interpret as having the authority to determine Scripture for Christians, then you must reject the NT. After all, the Oracles of God spoke – some 20 centuries ago! You have nothing but the Hebrew scriptures!

It is likewise strange that these Jewish “oracles”, actually Pharisaic Jews rejected the Septuagint which Greek-speaking Jews have been using for two centuries before the Council of Jamnia. What made them “change” their minds ?

Our friend Buzzard here seems to be implying that these Pharisees, the Jewish same party which actively persecuted Christ, possessed **more **authority than the Christian Church which Christ Himself founded. If such is the case, then perhaps Buzzard should decide once and for all if he still wants to remain a Christian, or convert to Judaism.

Gerry

 

[Katholikos]

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).

To elaborate a bit on David’s post, the canon was defined at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). It was reaffirmed at Florence (1438-45).

Pope Damusus I presided over the Council of Rome (although it was not a general council of all the world’s bishops). After the contents of the Bible were canonized, the Pope asked St. Jerome to translate all the writings into Latin. The result was the Vulgate edition, published in 405. The Council of Trent (1545-63) again affirmed the canon, and after naming the same writings, said:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The Vulgate edition, of course, contains the canon as first set at the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damusus I presiding .

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

RobedWithLight:

It is likewise strange that these Jewish “oracles”, actually Pharisaic Jews rejected the Septuagint which Greek-speaking Jews have been using for two centuries before the Council of Jamnia. What made them “change” their minds ?

Our friend Buzzard here seems to be implying that these Pharisees, the Jewish same party which actively persecuted Christ, possessed **more **authority than the Christian Church which Christ Himself founded. If such is the case, then perhaps Buzzard should decide once and for all if he still wants to remain a Christian, or convert to Judaism.

Gerry

Bravo, Gerry! :clapping: Jay

 

[Des]

Katholikos:

Bravo, Gerry! :clapping: Jay

Ditto, to both of you.

 

[Buzzard]

Katholikos:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The Vulgate edition, of course, contains the canon as first set at the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damusus I presiding .

JMJ Jay

Did you know that Jerome based his translation on the Hebrew text and it eventually became the standard for hundreds of years

In any case, Jerome translated the entire Old Testament from the Jewish Hebrew text. Not surprisingly, Jerome’s translation differed in many places from the Old Latin version (translated from the LXX) to which the Church had become accustomed; as a result, it was not readily accepted.

For a more serious example, Jerome’s translation greatly bothered Saint Augustine. Augustine believed that, “seventy united witnesses spoke with more authority than one, even if that one was as learned as Jerome” (catching some of the flavor of their disagreement). In an AD 403 letter to Jerome, Augustine expressed a strong desire that Jerome should do his translation from the LXX instead of the Hebrew text, fearing a consequent split between the Greek and Latin churches. Jerome responded at length to Augustine, defending his work - which he went on to complete in AD 405.

Jerome’s work was not accepted immediately, but came to be accepted over time. By the eighth century, and with some compromises to the Old Latin, it had become the Latin Vulgate (“editio vulgata” or “common version”) - the standard Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Following its acceptance, the Church essentially ignored the Greek and Hebrew languages for hundreds of years.

 

[Pyrosapien]

Buzzard,

Why are you using some letter written by some guy named Paul from the first century to a group of people in the city of Rome as an example of why we should or shouldn’t believe something?

What are your credentials? What language was it originally written in? Are you fluent in that language, and if not, who are you trusting as a reliable translator? Why should I believe what your interpretation is of the english translation of his letter?

Who were the recipients of this letter? How did they understand it? Who established them as a community? What authority did Paul have to lecture, correct, or instruct them? Did they produce some 2000 year old writing and use it as evidence that Paul was in error? Did they tell Paul that he had no authority to tell them what or how to practice their faith and that it was just between them, Jesus, and their personal reading and inspiration from the sacred writings?

If you were back there in Rome, would you have told Paul to mind his own business because Christ didn’t establish an authoritative body to instruct, correct, and lead the people?

Steve

 

[ahimsaman72]

Pyrosapien:

Buzzard,

Why are you using some letter written by some guy named Paul from the first century to a group of people in the city of Rome as an example of why we should or shouldn’t believe something?

What are your credentials? What language was it originally written in? Are you fluent in that language, and if not, who are you trusting as a reliable translator? Why should I believe what your interpretation is of the english translation of his letter?

Who were the recipients of this letter? How did they understand it? Who established them as a community? What authority did Paul have to lecture, correct, or instruct them? Did they produce some 2000 year old writing and use it as evidence that Paul was in error? Did they tell Paul that he had no authority to tell them what or how to practice their faith and that it was just between them, Jesus, and their personal reading and inspiration from the sacred writings?

If you were back there in Rome, would you have told Paul to mind his own business because Christ didn’t establish an authoritative body to instruct, correct, and lead the people?

Steve

I am amazed at your indifference to the greatest missionary the Christian church has ever known and an apostle of Christ Himself who was the only one to be added after the resurrection of Christ. You should check your sarcasm and indifference at the door and consider humility in light of the facts that Paul has apostolic authority in matters of the Christian faith, which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes and respects.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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?

JMJ Jay

Edited for length -

First, sola scriptura has some different meanings attached to it. I would posit that all things necessary for one’s salvation are found in Scripture. That would be my (as well as many others) definition of the term.

Second, I respectfully disagree that one’s faith or beliefs will vary, depending upon which Bible one accepts as the Word of God. I can see no reason or examples of such. What would you propose the different beliefs are - that are contained in the different “canons” as you expressed above? I have a Catholic Bible and many protestant Bibles. However, I have never seen personally or seen stated by other protestants the proposition that “theologically” the deutero’s are different than the rest of the accepted Scriptures that protestants accept.

It has been said and written by some protestants that the deutero’s contain geographical and historical errors, I freely admit. However, the only distinction I can think of in the theological area is the minor doctrine of praying for the dead.

Whether the Egyptian, Catholic or protestant canon - the same God, the same Jesus Christ and the same gospel is apparent. The core of Judeo-Christian theology is supplied no matter the canon. Maybe you can bring some examples to light that represent your argument in this regard.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Katholikos:

Which Bible?

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.).

JMJ Jay

We don’t have to ask the question of whose authority do we accept. That’s the problem.

The writings of Moses and the prophets were accepted by Christ as he stated in the NT. He considered them authoritative - so do I. So, as far as the OT, that is sufficient for me.

As for the NT, they are either written by the apostles themselves or those close to the apostles. And, as we both consider the apostles to be authoritative, we can conclude that whatever they wrote or can be attributed to have written is considered authoritative in itself. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings. Paul himself had commanded that his epistles be read aloud by the recipient church and other churches afterwards.

We have statements from Christ about the OT and direct quotes from Him directly from parts of the OT. It is authoritative in Christ’s own words, regardless of councils or men’s interpretation.

We have the apostles or their helpers written revelations in the NT and as already stated, and we would both agree that the apostles were closest to the Saviour Himself and can be considered authorities on Christian doctrine.

This is a very brief, general view, but is sufficient enough evidence on its own in my mind.

 

[_veritas]

ahimsaman72:

We don’t have to ask the question of whose authority do we accept. That’s the problem.

is the question – and not just regarding the Bible!

The writings of Moses and the prophets were accepted by Christ as he stated in the NT. He considered them authoritative - so do I. So, as far as the OT, that is sufficient for me.

Hmm. So why do you not accept the Septuigiant (that Christ Himself used) without question? And if you say because Christ didn’t quote any of the 7 books, that won’t work because He didn’t directly quote a LOT of stuff in the OT, including no quotations from anywhere in more than one book of the OT that Protestants still believe in.

As for the NT, they are either written by the apostles themselves or those close to the apostles. And, as we both consider the apostles to be authoritative, we can conclude that whatever they wrote or can be attributed to have written is considered authoritative in itself. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings. Paul himself had commanded that his epistles be read aloud by the recipient church and other churches afterwards.

We have statements from Christ about the OT and direct quotes from Him directly from parts of the OT. It is authoritative in Christ’s own words, regardless of councils or men’s interpretation.

We have the apostles or their helpers written revelations in the NT and as already stated, and we would both agree that the apostles were closest to the Saviour Himself and can be considered authorities on Christian doctrine.

This is a very brief, general view, but is sufficient enough evidence on its own in my mind.

Great. But it gets you nowhere philosophically or rationally. There were countless other documents and books floating about, many in use by various churches in different parts of the world. Yet, the Bible you use (except for the missing parts) is considered by you to be the Word of God ***on the authority of the Church that you reject ***(under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit).

You accept the outcome yet you reject the authority of the compilers (the earthly cause of the outcome) – this makes no logical sense.

You cannot avoid the authority issue if you believe that the Bible as it is today is the inerrent Word of God.

You cannot trust in the Bible unless you have trust in the men who cooperated with God – under His authority – to compile the Book and hand it down to you. (Unless you think it just floated down out of the sky one day like the tablets given to Moses, which as far as I know no Protestant has ever gone so far to say!)

If you ***do ***trust the Bible’s origin, then why do you undermine that authority by deciding that you really don’t like some of the books in the OT and hey, the Jews later got rid of them, so why not us too? Further, if it is true that the Church had the authority granted by God, what reason do you have for saying that it no longer has the authority granted by God?

:ehh:

+veritas+

 

[ahimsaman72]

+veritas+:

Hmm. So why do you not accept the Septuigiant (that Christ Himself used) without question? And if you say because Christ didn’t quote any of the 7 books, that won’t work because He didn’t directly quote a LOT of stuff in the OT, including no quotations from anywhere in more than one book of the OT that Protestants still believe in.

Great. But it gets you nowhere philosophically or rationally. There were countless other documents and books floating about, many in use by various churches in different parts of the world. Yet, the Bible you use (except for the missing parts) is considered by you to be the Word of God ***on the authority of the Church that you reject ***(under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit).

You accept the outcome yet you reject the authority of the compilers (the earthly cause of the outcome) – this makes no logical sense.

You cannot avoid the authority issue if you believe that the Bible as it is today is the inerrent Word of God.

You cannot trust in the Bible unless you have trust in the men who cooperated with God – under His authority – to compile the Book and hand it down to you. (Unless you think it just floated down out of the sky one day like the tablets given to Moses, which as far as I know no Protestant has ever gone so far to say!)

If you ***do ***trust the Bible’s origin, then why do you undermine that authority by deciding that you really don’t like some of the books in the OT and hey, the Jews later got rid of them, so why not us too? Further, if it is true that the Church had the authority granted by God, what reason do you have for saying that it no longer has the authority granted by God?

:ehh:

+veritas+

whoooaaaa, nelly…slow down there partner.

One idea at a time!

I never said I discounted “the other seven” deutero’s or considered them invalid. I simply asserted the reality of the difference between most Catholic and protestant views. I have a Catholic Bible at home as I have already stated on another post. I also asserted that the end result of which canon doesn’t take away from the fact that God and His Son, Jesus Christ and the gospel that saves is contained in whichever canon you choose anyway.

You have really assumed alot here. The more I read, the less I want to post a rational and kind response. And, you have rejected the statements I made which explain the very questions you have asked here.

You take things based on the assumption of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over all of Christendom. So, unless that issue is settled we won’t come to much agreement. If you will endlessly appeal to that notion we will not go far.

You must be aware that the Roman Catholic Church could not determine the Jewish Scriptures (as I have pointed out on other threads). They weren’t yours to decide which was authentic - which would be a good reason to accept the Hebrew Scriptures over the Septaugint.

By the way, Luther’s translations included all the books that Catholics include, though he put them in the rear and did not number them - although he had them listed. He didn’t remove any books - a common Catholic claim. He recognized some as containing the gospel of Christ (which to him was most important) and others that were secondary on a theological level.

I cannot aptly respond to everything because my kindness ends there.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Katholikos:

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

Luther did not cut out books of the Bible - according to different sources, (I don’t have a German Lutheran translation - so I can’t say for sure ) one of which I link to here:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a3

He included all of them, but relegated them to the back of his translation and did not number them, although he did list them.

The reformers after him went further and stopped including the deuterocanonicals at all in their translations of Scripture. Of course, the 1611 KJV still included them, but they were in the back as well and were considered non-binding compared to the rest of Scriptures.

I believe that God can still speak to mankind if He so wishes - through individuals - through prophets, but that God’s complete and divine revelation is with us and there’s no need for any further revelation - unless He so desires.

Peace…

 

[_veritas]

I believe that God can still speak to mankind if He so wishes - through individuals - through prophets, but that God’s complete and divine revelation is with us and there’s no need for any further revelation - unless He so desires.

“unless He so desires”? What if He has desired (or does, in fact, desire in the future)? Using your logic, how would you decide whether or not to believe He has so “desired?”

How on earth would you judge such a thing, except subjectively and “personally,” if you do not accept an authority other than the Bible?

Also, in response to your response – Are you not assuming that there cannot be an authority in the Catholic Church, the same way you say that I am “assuming” that the Catholic Church does have authority? (FWIW, there is a great book by Msgr. Ronald Knox called “The Belief of Catholics” that lays out a very clear philosophical argument as to why Catholics do not “assume” the authority of the Church, but have reasons to believe that the Church is, in fact, what it claims to be.)

I apologize if I sounded harsh earlier, I did not mean it that way at all… Sometimes I write too much like I talk and it doesn’t get communicated right. I simply want to know! Every time I have ever had a conversation with a Protestant who believes in the Bible alone I have never recieved a straight answer from them as to why they can logically believe such a thing in the light of how the Bible came to be in their hands to begin with.

+veritas+

 

[mayra_hart]

When was the Christian Canon of Scripture determined?"

The Canon recognized by the Catholic Church for the past fifteen centuries (73 books) was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D., and was definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after being sent to the Pope for confirmation.

While some of the books ratified by the Council of Carthage had always been considered to be canonical, others had been disputed. Finally at this Council a union of minds was reached as to the canonicity of the whole 73 books and epistles.

In the 16th century Martin Luther greatly stirred the religious world, by dubbing as apocrypha certain books that were unquestioned for twelve centuries. He declared the Epistle of St. James to be an “Epistle of straw”; threw “Esther” into the Elbe; called “Judith” a mere poem; “Tobias” a farce; and expressed regret that the “second Book of Machabees” was ever written. The Council of Trent (1546) therefore deemed it expedient to declare, ex-cathedra, that is by the infallible authority of the Church, that the list of books adopted at the Council of Carthage is the authoritative, the finally determined, collection of writings composed under Divine inspiration

 

[mayra_hart]

The differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles have been due largely to “Reformation” translations that were motivated by hostility towards Catholic teachings and practices, which is not as intense among Protestants today as it used to be. One of the doctrinal instances, that has been corrected in the Revised Version, bears evidence of having been prompted by a desire to refute the Catholic practice of serving Communion under one kind, believing, as Catholics do, that Christ is present whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearance of bread as well as under the appearance of wine. This was done by inserting the word AND in the place of OR in verse 27, chapter XI of the First Corinthians. The original reads: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this wine unworthily, etc.”

St. Matthew 6:7 is made to read in the Protestant text: “When ye pray, use not vain repetitions.” This is aimed at the repeated prayers of Catholics while saying the Rosary, as if repetition of the “Our Father” that Christ taught, and the “Hail Mary full of grace” salutation of the Angel Gabriel, were “vain.” The Catholic text, of pre-Protestant origin, reads – “But in praying, do not multiply words, as the Gentiles do.” It was not “repetitions” but “much speaking” that was condemned, as Saint Augustine said fifteen centuries ago: “Christ does not forbid much praying, but much speaking.”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The distinction being made about Luther and other reformers only moving books to the back of the bible is meaningless because while the text of those books was included in the printed book, they were placed in the back because they were not considered inspired. They were removed from the canon, which means that whether they were placed into a book as a helpful appendix or not they had also been removed from the Bible proper. Luther gutted the Bible (he tried to remove many NT books as well, before being prevailed upon by cooler heads), at first even wanting to remove the book of Revelation because he couldn’t make out a clear sense of the text. And we all know that our assumptions (in this case, that revealed Scripture always has a clear, obvious meaning) trump any other considerations for a book’s canonicity.

 

[ahimsaman72]

“unless He so desires”? What if He has desired (or does, in fact, desire in the future)? Using your logic, how would you decide whether or not to believe He has so “desired?”

How on earth would you judge such a thing, except subjectively and “personally,” if you do not accept an authority other than the Bible?

Also, in response to your response – Are you not assuming that there cannot be an authority in the Catholic Church, the same way you say that I am “assuming” that the Catholic Church does have authority? (FWIW, there is a great book by Msgr. Ronald Knox called “The Belief of Catholics” that lays out a very clear philosophical argument as to why Catholics do not “assume” the authority of the Church, but have reasons to believe that the Church is, in fact, what it claims to be.)

+veritas+

Do you believe in prophets? God does.

What is the requirement for believing a prophet?

Numbers 12:6

1. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3

1. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and
2. And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3. Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22

1. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
2. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
3. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
4. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
5. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

God has always sent messengers to His people. In these last days, He has sent His Son. As the above verse stated, “*for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” *He sends messengers and expects His people to believe those messengers. He does it to “prove” us - to test our faith in Him.

The question which has always been raised in response to authority issues is - who has the ultimate authority? I personally have come to the conclusion that the ultimate authority is Scripture. All that we need to know for salvation is contained therein and therefore it is sufficient.

Salvation and authority are the key issues that separate us.

Denzinger 469"…Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

So says the Catholic Church.

Such a thing is repugnant to the Orthodox and protestants around the world. It is a claim that separates all of Christendom visibly.

Since I find no evidence throughout God’s messages to mankind that state such a horrendous view - I reject it along with my brothers the Orthodox.