Which is older

[fellowChristian]

The Catholic Church or the Bible

How old is each?

On your mark,
get set,
GO!

And I am not talking about the Eastern or the Western Rites.

And not the “Roman” church.

 

[Montalban]

How many chances do I get?

 

[PapaSquash]

Parts of the Bible are much older. But I’m pretty sure you refer to the books of the New Testament.

If so, the church is older, being founded after the resurrection and before Jesus’ assumption.

The Books started trickling in a few years later. Some are older than others. Do we consider each piece of inspired scripture to be “the Bible” or do we have to wait until the last piece is written before “the Good Book” is complete? Or do we wait for the Canon to be defined? I’d say the Bible existed well before the Canon was defined. Some people just weren’t sure what was in it, and needed to have that laid out for them.

 

[Montalban]

Parts of the Bible are much older. But I’m pretty sure you refer to the books of the New Testament.

Books that later became the Bible are indeed older. But the Bible doesn’t date before the church.

The Books started trickling in a few years later. Some are older than others. Do we consider each piece of inspired scripture to be “the Bible” or do we have to wait until the last piece is written before “the Good Book” is complete? Or do we wait for the Canon to be defined? I’d say the Bible existed well before the Canon was defined. Some people just weren’t sure what was in it, and needed to have that laid out for them.

It’s not the Bible until compiled as such. Books exist from before the Bible that are part of Christian life, but are not in the Bible, such as the Didache.

The question would be akin to “Which is older, the Royal Shakespeare Company or the Anthology of Shakespeare?”

Whilst the individual plays existed before the anthology they were not the anthology.

 

[PapaSquash]

So, when the last book was written? or when the canon was defined?

For some time before the Canon was defined “everything that is the Bible” existed, but does it require definition to become “the Bible?”

 

[Montalban]

So, when the last book was written? or when the canon was defined?

It would have to be defined because by definition the Bible is a ‘collection of holy books’ It therefore can only exist when as a collection.

For e.g. just say there were only 10 books. All the first 9 were written in 100 years. The 10th wasn’t until another 200 years. A hundred years later they’re brought together in an anthology. Sorry for the logic: that anthology can’t exist before it existed.

We’re look at this retrospectively and knowing that the books we now know are compiled together are together, and existed long before they were together bound, but to people in the early church with no Bible, but the individual books, they can’t very well be refferring to a collection until that collection exists

Unless they generally refer to ‘scriptures’.

For some time before the Canon was defined “everything that is the Bible” existed, but does it require definition to become “the Bible?”

Yes, 'cause that what Bible means. Sorry I had to labour the point but I thought it was obvious

And, of course the Jews could refer to the Bible and mean the Septuagint and not our Bible

 

[JFonseka]

The Bible in itself as a book is much after the Church.

Because the Bible is a compilation, I’m guessing 300 - 400 years after? Not sure though.

 

[fellowChristian]

The canon wasn’t defined in **382 **with **Pope Damasus I **at the **Council of Rome **was it?
I know that is the pope who had **St. Jerome **his secretary translate Scripture in to Latin.

But was the canon defined then or later at the **Council of Trent **in 1563?

And by saying defined are we saying finalized?

 

[fellowChristian]

La Biblia Sacra Vulgata

Translates into

The Sacred Books in the Vernacular (the common language)

Hows my Latin guys?
You know what I mean

 

[Delraek]

The canon wasn’t defined in **382 **with **Pope Damasus I **at the **Council of Rome **was it?
I know that is the pope who had **St. Jerome **his secretary translate Scripture in to Latin.

But was the canon defined then or later at the **Council of Trent **in 1563?

And by saying defined are we saying finalized?

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

 

[Montalban]

See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Canonization

 

[Contarini]

Oh please, not this nonsense again.

You don’t need to have defined every last book in the Bible (arguably this didn’t happen for the Western Church until Trent, and I never have quite figured out when the East did it) to have a Bible. As long as you have even one book that is functioning as canonical Scripture, you have a Bible. I would go further–since inspiration comes from God and does not depend on human recognition, I’d say that you have a Bible as soon as even one document is written. But that is something that we can debate. The view that you don’t have a Bible until every dispute about the limits of the canon is settled is simply untenable–it’s clear that parts of the NT were functioning as canonical Scripture long before that point.

Clearly the letters of Paul were functioning as Scripture by the time 2 Peter was written, and the Gospels were functioning as Scripture in the time of Papias. So at most the NT Church is no more than a century older than the New Testament. I would say that the NT Church may be no more than two or three decades older than parts of the NT, but I won’t insist on that.

Edwin

 

[fellowChristian]

“I’d say that you have a Bible as soon as even one document is written.”

The faithful must have had from the beginning some realization that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists they had acquired a** new body **of Divine Scriptures, a New written Testament destined to stand side by side with the Old.

That the Gospel and Epistles were the written Word of God, was fully realized as soon as the fixed collections were formed; but to seize the relation of this new treasure to the old was possible only when the faithful acquired a better knowledge of the faith.

The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[Montalban]

“I’d say that you have a Bible as soon as even one document is written.”

The faithful must have had from the beginning some realization that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists they had acquired a** new body **of Divine Scriptures, a New written Testament destined to stand side by side with the Old.

Yes, they could refer to the ‘books of Christianity’ but there was not a ‘bible’ which is a special collection of some of those books

For instance we know of the existence of the Didache - that it was around quite early, because we have evidence from people writing about it. They wrote about it, discussed it, used it. It’s not in the Bible though!

 

[fellowChristian]

Oh please, not this nonsense again.

You don’t need to have defined every last book in the Bible (arguably this didn’t happen for the Western Church until Trent, and I never have quite figured out when the East did it) to have a Bible. As long as you have even one book that is functioning as canonical Scripture, you have a Bible. I would go further–since inspiration comes from God and does not depend on human recognition,** I’d say that you have a Bible as soon as even one document is written. **But that is something that we can debate. The view that you don’t have a Bible until every dispute about the limits of the canon is settled is simply untenable–it’s clear that parts of the NT were functioning as canonical Scripture long before that point.

Clearly the letters of Paul were functioning as Scripture by the time 2 Peter was written, and the Gospels were functioning as Scripture in the time of Papias. So at most the NT Church is no more than a century older than the New Testament. I would say that the NT Church may be no more than two or three decades older than parts of the NT, but I won’t insist on that.

Edwin

Is where I got the quote:blush:

 

[PapaSquash]

Yes, they could refer to the ‘books of Christianity’ but there was not a ‘bible’ which is a special collection *of some *of those books

For instance we know of the existence of the Didache - that it was around quite early, because we have evidence from people writing about it. They wrote about it, discussed it, used it. It’s not in the Bible though!

But the Bible isn’t an arbitrarily selected collection of “some of the Books of Christian writings.” It is held to be divinely inspired. The fact that extra-canonical and arguably non-heretical things like the Didache, written by Christians, existed concurrently with the Epistles and Gospels only proves that some documents that existed at the time weren’t considered "Biblical’ (to use a loaded term).

It comes down to definition: Does “the Bible” mean:

“this particular collection of books right here” (This didn’t exist until it was defined)

or

“The divinely inspired scriptures of God” (This existed as soon as the first paragraph was written)

Both definitions are arguably valid.

 

[Montalban]

But the Bible isn’t an arbitrarily selected collection of “some of the Books of Christian writings.”

Never did I say this. All I said was that until a collection of books was compiled, it couldn’t be the Bible. How that collection was compiled is something I didn’t deal with.

The Bible (as we use the term now) *is *the collection. It didn’t exist before itself. Regardless that contents of what is now in the Bible did. The fact words existed prior to the book doesn’t mean the book existed when the words existed.

The words in my argument existed before I typed them - the argument existed before I typed it. You couldn’t have responded to my ‘post’ until it was posted, despite the argument having existed moments before the post.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Contarini:

…So at most the NT Church is no more than a century older than the New Testament. I would say that the NT Church may be no more than two or three decades older than parts of the NT, but I won’t insist on that.

Wasn’t the NT Church set in motion so to speak at Pentacost? Since the apostles were still alive during this event, it seems to me that a century or even a few decades would be a bit too far out into the future for the founding of the NT Church. Jesus didn’t wait that long after the resurrection in order to complete the apostles training for His continuing ministry. It seems to me to say otherwise is to suggest that Christ let us spin our wheels for several years after the resurrection before infusing some Grace to get the NT Church rolling. It doesn’t add up from my understanding of Christ’s intimate relationship with us.

 

[Montalban]

Wasn’t the NT Church set in motion so to speak at Pentacost? Since the apostles were still alive during this event, it seems to me that a century or even a few decades would be a bit too far out into the future for the founding of the NT Church. Jesus didn’t wait that long after the resurrection in order to complete the apostles training for His continuing ministry. It seems to me to say otherwise is to suggest that Christ let us spin our wheels for several years after the resurrection before infusing some Grace to get the NT Church rolling. It doesn’t add up from my understanding of Christ’s intimate relationship with us.

Yes, the church was founded at Pentecost!
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”
Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I

 

[chewchoo]

there’s a book called ‘where we got the bible’ by rev. henry g. graham.
has all the dates and why-for’s of what you’re looking for.