Who had the final say on which books are inspired?

[Achilles6129]

In your posts, you are unconsciously presupposing the (Catholic) template, one tradition of early Christianity. Then you say a certain 27 books are inspired, because they fit into that template, and other books are not apostolic, and or “forgeries”.

None of the other books even come close to the NT canon. The Gospel of Thomas, which is probably the best of all the forgeries, isn’t even remotely similar to the NT. There’s nothing out there that even remotely resembles the NT except the NT itself. I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

If you start out with a different template (set of assumptions) in mind, you might throw out some of the 27 books, and bring in others, especially the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Mary, and others. I am not endorsing this, just pointing out that this happened in the ancient Church, and happens today - read “A New New Testament”, and other current efforts to expand the NT canon. The criteria you refer to - this book is apostolic, so it’s in, that book is a forgery, so it’s out - are valid, but inadequate. Scholars who reject your, and my, 27 book NT canon, also use those criteria, but arrive at different canons.

None of those books remotely resemble the OT in quality of writing and some (like the Gospel of Thomas) are proven forgeries. They don’t even read similarly (just like the Bible and the Qur’an don’t even read similarly). Here are a few nice quotes from the Gospel of Thomas:

gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

1. Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

1. Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

1. The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?”

Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

1. Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.”

Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

without an authoritative Magisterium, how do you know these 27 books are the “right” NT canon? There are several possible ways to evaluate a book; some books in the traditional NT 27 don’t meet all the criteria, some books outside the 27 do meet some criteria; but how do you know what criteria to use, anyway, without a Magisterium?

It’s easy to determine which books belong in the NT and which don’t. I already pointed this out in previous posts. It’s not even a contest.

 

[Achilles6129]

And so does a bunch of new studies that discredit the Jamnia, which the consensus is it was a school, not a council.

Could you link to these studies, please? They must be from a reputable source.

And you have answered this yet…what is the ability of Jews to have a council?

Because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. See Rom. 3:2. And though I’ve already repeated this many times, I’ll say it again: the council of Jamnia didn’t tell the Jews anything about the canon that they hadn’t already known for centuries.

Then Bruce did not do enough research. If Jamnia was being questioned as early before his book, then he should have looked at it.

The wikedepia source is intended to point you to other sources, and widen your knowledge base about Jamnia.

aliveandyoung.net/2012/08/the-jewish-council-of-jamnia-and.html

From the very source you linked:

Alive and Young is a site dedicated to discussing the off-beat topics of sex, religion, politics, and humor. My qualification for starting such a blog on these topics is that I have no qualification for starting such a blog on sex, religion, politics, and humor.

So you’re going to go with this site above F.F. Bruce? I think I’ll pass, thanks.

catholicbiblestudent.com/2007/07/council-of-jamnia-if-you-ever-read.html

Here’s the scoop: A German scholar, Heinrich Graetz, introduced the idea in 1871 based on a tiny passage in the Mishnah, m. Yadayim 3:5. Yadayim is one of the last sections in the sixth order (part) of the Mishnah, called Tohorot. Since then, tons of scholars have repeated over and over and over that the exclusion of the deutero-canonical books relies on the Council of Jamnia’s decision. But very few scholars go back to Graetz’s work and take a look at m. Yad. 3:5. I was curious, so I took a look.

Guess what I found?

m. Yad. 3:5 presents a few rabbis’ arguments about whether Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are canonical or not. That is, whether they “render unclean the hands.” (If a book is canonical then it “renders unclean the hands.”) After a few arguments are presented, then votes are cast and both books are considered canonical. That’s it. There is no discussion of the deutero-canonical books. There is no definitive list of the canonical books. There is nothing that indicates they made more decisions. It only presents two sides of an argument over the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

It really doesn’t matter. The point is that the Jewish canon was already well established and had rejected the Apocrypha:

jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/jamnia/

CARM is Matt Slick’s site, a well known anti-Catholic.

Anything Protestant is obviously not going to agree with the Catholic interpretation of theology.

sorry, may have misread your comment. But you cite the Sadducees in your posts and arguments…so you seem to be picking and choosing only what you agree with from them, and not the entirety of their beliefs?

Of course…why would I agree with the entirety of their beliefs? All that I said about the Sadducees was in response to someone who claimed that they only held the Torah to be Scripture. This simply can’t be proven.

Purgatory is describing the process of purgation, or cleansing…that is mentioned in 1Cor 3.

You said you did not find any evidence of purgatory…why are your conclusions correct?

I don’t believe the purgation described in 1 Cor. 3 refers to the Catholic Purgatory that we’re talking about.

 

[Achilles6129]

So you think the Epistle of Clement to Corinth is a forgery?

No, it’s just not Apostolic. It may be a forgery (I’m not sure), it certainly contains inaccurate data:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Clement as a disciple of Peter…so do you consider him not apostolic like Mark?

Mark most likely wrote the recollections of Peter. Peter may very well have dictated the Gospel of Mark. Clement is not Apostolic and is just writing by himself. In addition, he believes that a mythological bird is real.

Then who decided that Hebrews and Revelation are not forgeries and are of apostolic origin?

Revelation is written by the Apostle John and thus its basis in the canon is secure. Hebrews is a tougher one but was deemed Apostolic by the early church fathers. The author of Hebrews is obviously familiar with Timothy and thus familiar with Paul.

So you’ve got one book, out of 27, where we don’t know the author and can’t entirely confirm an Apostolic origin (though it is from the Apostolic era). Nonetheless, the author clearly associated himself with the Apostles. The early church fathers for some reason accept the book; most likely it was written by Barnabas or Apollos, which would be good enough for me to consider it inspired. Please note that Clement is not even remotely on the same level as either of the two.

 

[Achilles6129]

Ecclesiastes and Ezra are never mentioned in the New Testament. Should we throw them out as well?

Not every book has to be mentioned in the NT and called Scripture to be considered Scripture. As far as Eccles. and Ezra are concerned, the Jews considered them Scripture which is why they are in the OT canon - and the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2).

SOME Jews believed these books were not divinely inspired. many did:

These 7 books were accepted by the Diaspora Jews (the Alexandrian Canon) who were not in Palestine. They are called the “deuterocanon”, or second canon, by Catholics, and the “apocrypha”, or hidden/obscure, by Protestants and there are portions of them found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which clearly substantiates their acceptance by Jews of the time.

Could you link to this from a reputable source, please?

 

[commenter]

None of the other books even come close to the NT canon. The Gospel of Thomas, which is probably the best of all the forgeries, isn’t even remotely similar to the NT. There’s nothing out there that even remotely resembles the NT except the NT itself.

You are starting out with a template, a specific set of 27 books. (Why start with those 27?) You assume that any book has to “resemble” that 27. Why would it have to resemble your template to be considered Scripture? If you had started with other books, I suppose Luke and Mark might not “resemble” those starting books.
Do all the 27 books in your template “resemble” each other? Not really. Do epistles resemble gospels? Does anything in your template resemble Revelations?

Your opinion is worth something - for instance, about “what resembles what”. But other people have the opinion that Philemon, for instance, doesn’t fit in, or that certain other books “resemble” or are more consistent with “the template” you have identified, than some of Paul’s epistles, for instance. Why shouldn’t their perception rank equally with your perception? Other people perceive different books besides your template to be inspired. Do you think they should follow their own perceptions on what’s “inspired”: for instance, “I like the Gospel of Mary, but not the Gospel of Mathew”.

Again, the biggest problem is that you are starting with the Magisterium’s template - assuming that is the standard - these 27 books - by which all candidates for scripture must be measured - without understanding that the Magisterium chose those 27 books for you and me in the first place, under God’s guidance.

I am curious what you would think about the movement that is backing “A New New Testament”. I totally disagree with it of course, but it does raise questions about the canon for certain groups.

 

[adf417]

I predict in the near future #3 (the Evangelical position) will shrink. Some people will give up Sola Scriptura (i. e. go to #1); some others will take Sola to the logical conclusion, (#2). If you try to hold to #3, you may witness to someone, but they will respond “that book isn’t in my New Testament”.** They will quote from some book in their own New Testament, that’s not in your NT**.

Consider the future here and now. The JW’s have already succeeded in distributing their own version of the bible with their own distorted interpretation and disguised it as “THE” bible. Its the same thing.

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

It is my contention that the concept of Purgatory is being read into the text (of the Apocrypha).

In Maccabees it talks of them praying for the dead. If there is only Heaven or Hell what good will prayers for the dead do? It is amazing to me that you cannot see that concept, when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and millions of Protestants have.

The Trinity is not being read into the text but is there right from the beginning:

“26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”” Gen. 1:26 (NASB)

And yet all non-Trinitarians, and interestingly the Jewish people, say that Trinitarians are reading into the text something that is not there. It is my understanding that some of them now have changed the words “let us” to “I will”, and “our” to “my”. It was the Church that set the doctine of the Trinity in stone, just like it did the OT.

I didn’t see any source that said that.

Do an internet search for canon of Ethiopian Jewry.

Well, actually, it was God. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God:

“Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

Now if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God then clearly the Jewish OT canon is what we should be going by.

Hmmm. Which OT? Ethiopian?

Because they already assumed the same Jewish canon that had been around for centuries and established by tradition - the Jewish canon Protestants hold to today. Have you ever wondered why you accept only those 7 books of the Apocrypha, and not the others that the LXX translators translated?

But I thought there was no set canon of the OT until decades after Christ died. I thought you said it was finalized in 90AD. Oh well. Not important to me. I follow the Church.

The following is from an article by Jimmy Akin.

**The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted AS AUTHORITATIVE in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It ALWAYS included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church SEEMS TO HAVE ACCEPT ALL, or MOST of, these additional books as INSPIRED and to have treated them without question as SCRIPTURE.**

Why would the early Christians, some that knew the Apostles, accept books as inspired, that you say the Apostles didn’t?

I will follow what the Church teaches. Catholics accept the authority of the Church, the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) whom our Lord promised to be protected from gates of hades (Matthew 16:19) to determine the canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.

 

[michaelhager]

So, let’s get a little crazy here and go with the mysteries of numerology in the Bible. (This is not scriptural and totally non academic)

But… the numbers 7 and 3 are special numbers in the bible (Special at the time in general society) 7 is repeated often… forgive 7 times 70, there are 7 deadly sins, there are 7 sacraments… 3, the trinity and on and on…

6 is an un-holy number, the number of the beast is 666… and so on.

73 books or 66 books?

Interesting…

 

[michaelhager]

Here’s the thing:

It really doesn’t matter what the ancient or modern or any Jews thought was the correct cannon of their scriptures. Obviously they were as conflicted as all of these posts above.

God sent His only Son, (a Jew) to serve as our savior. Christ practiced Jewish laws and customs as did His apostles after His resurrection.

At that time, and for 400 years or so, there was no New Testament.

Paul wrote to Timothy that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” We need to remember that when he wrote this, it was NOT scripture, but simply an instruction letter to Timothy to remind him to be faithful in all ways in leading Christians in his neighborhood.

At some point, a group of Catholic Bishops got together and decided that Paul’s letter was inspired and "…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

They also decided that 72 other books, letters, stories and documents were of equal value and included them in a list of books to be used for "…teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Thus, the Catholic Church established the approved books of the bible that was used for the next 600 years by Christians all over the world. It wasn’t until around 1100 that the entire collections of these works was bound into a single volume and not until the 1450’s was the Bible mass produced by Gutenberg.

Then, in the 1500’s, 1,100 or so years after the church had decided on the inspired Canon of the Bible, Luther broke from the Church and on his own, a single person, decided that he was smarter and more inspired than 1500 years of Church Fathers and threw out books of the Bible that he did not personally approve of.

The fact that Jews did or did not approve of certain books is irrelevant. The Fathers of the Church decided after hundreds of years what to include in the Bible. They have held to this belief for two thousand plus years.

This debate will obviously rage for several more pages of back and forth, but I’m going to go with Two Thousand years of consensus by thousands of Church Scholars, not the sudden fallible ideas of a single man who didn’t like his church.

As a Presbyterian I was never fully aware of the “missing” books of the Bible. Upon my conversion to Catholicism I discovered a wealth of inspiration and truth in those books so wisely included by the Church fathers. I have also found that much of what is written there is directly related to Christ’s mission on earth.

Read them…

 

[commenter]

When I was a young man, the New Testament was a “given”. Believe it or don’t believe it, but no serious person considered the possibility of adding or subtracting books, anymore than they would have considered same-sex marriage. Today, mainstream people, including Methodist bishops and the leader of President Obama’s denomination, not cults, are adding different books for the New Testament. I’m talking about many scholars, not the Mormons or JWs.

I’m not trying to shake the faith of the poster who - rightly - defends the New Testament against anyone who would attack it. I’m simply pointing out there’s a different kind of challenge now, that many Christians are unprepared for. It’s one thing to “defend” the gospel against those who oppose the gospel, it’s another thing when your opponents have other gospels, all backed by scholars, all justifiable by the same criteria you use to justify the books in your NT.

One could argue that Billy Graham didn’t need to understand the Magisterium back in the America of the 1950s, when there was only one possible New Testament, and his only opposition was sin. That isn’t the decade we live in today.

 

[Achilles6129]

You are starting out with a template, a specific set of 27 books. (Why start with those 27?)

I’ve answered this before: because of who they were written by. This is a lot simpler than you (and critics) are making it out to seem.

You assume that any book has to “resemble” that 27. Why would it have to resemble your template to be considered Scripture?

Because they are Apostolic in origin and very much alike in style of writing and theology. There is no other book that is Apostolic in origin and akin in theology to the New Testament. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

Do all the 27 books in your template “resemble” each other? Not really. Do epistles resemble gospels? Does anything in your template resemble Revelations?

Yes, they all do resemble one another in literary style and theology. Here’s an interesting link to a study which deals with chiasm (a particular literary device) in the New Testament:

amazon.com/Chiasmus-New-Testament-Function-Structures/dp/0943575923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418489735&sr=1-1&keywords=chiasmus+in+the+new+testament&pebp=1418489738957

Your opinion is worth something - for instance, about “what resembles what”. But other people have the opinion that Philemon, for instance, doesn’t fit in,

I’ve answered this before on several different occasions: again, the reason why Philemon is in the NT is because it is Apostolic in origin.

Do you think they should follow their own perceptions on what’s “inspired”: for instance, “I like the Gospel of Mary, but not the Gospel of Mathew”.

So you’re saying that perhaps it might be logical to replace the Gospel of Matthew with a gospel that would be barely one of Matthew’s chapters long?:

gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

When I was a young man, the New Testament was a “given”. Believe it or don’t believe it, but no serious person considered the possibility of adding or subtracting books, anymore than they would have considered same-sex marriage. Today, mainstream people, including Methodist bishops and the leader of President Obama’s denomination, not cults, are adding different books for the New Testament. I’m talking about many scholars, not the Mormons or JWs.

Can you give some links for this?

it’s another thing when your opponents have other gospels, all backed by scholars, all justifiable by the same criteria you use to justify the books in your NT.

So they’re all Apostolic, then? Also, it would be nice to have an actual Gospel (like Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John), instead of a “gospel” that turns out to be about half of a normal Biblical chapter

 

[Achilles6129]

In Maccabees it talks of them praying for the dead. If there is only Heaven or Hell what good will prayers for the dead do? It is amazing to me that you cannot see that concept, when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and millions of Protestants have.

Lots of people pray for the dead without the concept of Purgatory involved.

And yet all non-Trinitarians, and interestingly the Jewish people, say that Trinitarians are reading into the text something that is not there. It is my understanding that some of them now have changed the words “let us” to “I will”, and “our” to “my”. It was the Church that set the doctine of the Trinity in stone, just like it did the OT.

If they have changed the words then they have modified the original text.

Do an internet search for canon of Ethiopian Jewry.

Hmmm. Which OT? Ethiopian?

So you’re going to elevate what a few Jews in Ethiopia thought over what every Israelite Jew thought? Ethiopia is now more important than Israel or Jerusalem? The simple fact of the matter is that Ethiopian Jews are not representatives of the religion of Israel. Incidentally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes the book of Enoch should be a part of the canon…do you agree?

But I thought there was no set canon of the OT until decades after Christ died. I thought you said it was finalized in 90AD. Oh well. Not important to me. I follow the Church.

If you thought I said that, you were wrong: I said that the OT agreed upon at the council of Jamnia was simply the same OT that the Jews had always had. I’ve said this now many times, so much so that I’m just not going to repeat it any longer.

The following is from an article by Jimmy Akin.

**The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted AS AUTHORITATIVE in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It ALWAYS included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church SEEMS TO HAVE ACCEPT ALL, or MOST of, these additional books as INSPIRED and to have treated them without question as SCRIPTURE.**

Why would the early Christians, some that knew the Apostles, accept books as inspired, that you say the Apostles didn’t?

Have you ever wondered why they’re called “Deutero-canonicals” if they’re supposed to be a part of the original canon? Maybe because the Catholic Church accepted them, but with reservation?

I have already said previously that we should go by Apostolic witness and, since the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), what the Jews thought of the OT canon, not what some early church authority (non-Apostolic) thought.

 

[Achilles6129]

So, let’s get a little crazy here and go with the mysteries of numerology in the Bible. (This is not scriptural and totally non academic)

Thanks for admitting that!

But… the numbers 7 and 3 are special numbers in the bible (Special at the time in general society) 7 is repeated often… forgive 7 times 70, there are 7 deadly sins, there are 7 sacraments… 3, the trinity and on and on…

6 is an un-holy number, the number of the beast is 666… and so on.

73 books or 66 books?

Interesting…

Indeed. So when we see that the book of Isaiah has 66 chapters, should we toss it out as Antichrist? And also…the beast and the dragon have 7 heads in the book of Revelation…and there is a Satanic Trinity (dragon, beast, false prophet).

Here’s the thing:

It really doesn’t matter what the ancient or modern or any Jews thought was the correct cannon of their scriptures.

It does matter. I’ll quote Romans 3:2 again:

“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews[a] were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:1-2 (NRSV)

Obviously they were as conflicted as all of these posts above.

No, they were not.

 

[commenter]

Until recently, the standard NT canon was a “given”, in the US and many countries. It was assumed to be these 27 books, no chance of any other. Christians had to deal with opponents of the New Testament, they never had to deal with opposing New Testaments.

In recent years, there is a powerful movement to add, or subtract books from the NT canon. One example, not the only one, is the book “A New New Testament” includes the participation of the President of the United Church of Christ, some Methodist bishops, and other scholars, who have heavy academic and media connections. I do not endorse this at all, just describing the strength of what I consider our opponents.

It’s inadequate to “defend” the traditional canon in terms of certain criteria (apostolic origin; not forgery; theological soundness; consistency; and several other traditional criteria) because other people interpret those criteria differently, and apply them to different books, and have new criteria anyway. Whether they are “right” or not, the reality is they have access to bible publishers, the secular media, and a growing access to some liberal Protestant denominations, for worship services and Sunday School. In coming years you or your children will encounter people who have extra gospels, and lack certain familiar epistles, in their Bibles.

In the long run, I think there will be some people who accept the Magisterium, and its - single - New Testament; and there will be other people who have multiple versions of the NT in their Bibles, with some books the same, others different, depending either on their local congregation’s choice, or their own personal choices; “this gospel seems Scriptural to me; that one does not”.

You may argue “Evangelicals will NEVER accept the new books in their bibles.” Well…

 

[cottice]

The Jews had the final say on the Old Testament and the early church on the New. Of course, the Catholic OT does not correspond to the Jewish OT (though the Protestant OT does). Those that are theologically inclined would obviously say that God controlled the entire process.

Totally wrong. The Jews have never officially closed the canon of Jewish scripture. Whereas the OT canon in christian churches is closed. The christian Bibles use the Greek Septuagint as the basis for their OT not the Jewish scriptures. It is commonly believed that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew scriptures before the time of Jesus and contained the deuterocanonical books. Therefore the deuterocanonical books were part of the original Hebrew scriptures (although not written in Hebrew) but were later removed by (presumably) Jewish rabbiis.

 

[commenter]

Totally wrong. The Jews have never officially closed the canon of Jewish scripture. Whereas the OT canon in christian churches is closed. The christian Bibles use the Greek Septuagint as the basis for their OT not the Jewish scriptures. It is commonly believed that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew scriptures before the time of Jesus and contained the deuterocanonical books. Therefore the deuterocanonical books were part of the original Hebrew scriptures (although not written in Hebrew) but were later removed by (presumably) Jewish rabbiis.

Correct. There ** is** no “Jewish OT”. The Jews recognize no such concept. “Old Testament” is a Catholic term: the Magisterium decided certain writings from before Christ should be considered “inspired” for Christians, but also certain other writings after Christ, and should be divided into separate testaments. The Christian “Old Testament” is understood in relation to the NT, very different from how Jews view their Scriptures. The Magisterium called the older writings “the Old Testament”, and the newer writings “the New Testament”. The New Testament is also a Catholic concept. Then the Magisterium determined the canon of Scripture to be closed.

These decisions were not made by “the Church” in general, because the ancient Church had many canons, many theories about the nature of the older and newer “scriptures(?)”, and also they didn’t all agree with the canon closing. One authoritative element within the Church - the Magisterium - essentially imposed its decisions, and many Christians followed them - i. e. the Catholics. The other Christians, who may have been the majority, had other theories and other canons. They either converted to accept the Popes and bishops, or else they faded into non-Christian religions, or - anti-Catholic scholars say - the Catholics killed them off, and burned their canons, and labelled them heretics.

After some doubts by Luther, Protestants embraced the exact NT canon of the popes, for centuries. In the last few years, liberal Protestants, quite logically, said since they don’t follow the Magisterium, they should reopen the NT canon. They reject the authority of the past popes and bishops, or for that matter, Pope Francis, who claim the canon is closed.

 

[cottice]

Correct. There ** is** no “Jewish OT”. The Jews recognize no such concept. “Old Testament” is a Catholic term: the Magisterium decided certain writings from before Christ should be considered “inspired” for Christians, but also certain other writings after Christ, and should be divided into separate testaments. The Christian “Old Testament” is understood in relation to the NT, very different from how Jews view their Scriptures. The Magisterium called the older writings “the Old Testament”, and the newer writings “the New Testament”. The New Testament is also a Catholic concept. Then the Magisterium determined the canon of Scripture to be closed.

These decisions were not made by “the Church” in general, because the ancient Church had many canons, many theories about the nature of the older and newer “scriptures(?)”, and also they didn’t all agree with the canon closing. One authoritative element within the Church - the Magisterium - essentially imposed its decisions, and many Christians followed them - i. e. the Catholics. The other Christians, who may have been the majority, had other theories and other canons. They either converted to accept the Popes and bishops, or else they faded into non-Christian religions, or - anti-Catholic scholars say - the Catholics killed them off, and burned their canons, and labelled them heretics.

After some doubts by Luther, Protestants embraced the exact NT canon of the popes, for centuries. In the last few years, liberal Protestants, quite logically, said since they don’t follow the Magisterium, they should reopen the NT canon. They reject the authority of the past popes and bishops, or for that matter, Pope Francis, who claim the canon is closed.

I am not sure that is correct. For the first 300 years or so of Christianity there was no agreement on the canon of scripture. It wasn’t until about the year 350 that Bishop Athanasius developed a canon that included the books we have in our bibles today. But other bishops devised their own scripture canons. Generally speaking these different canons had in common several writings form both the new as well as the old Testaments. These became known as the Protocanonical books. Other writings which were not commonly accepted but which were included in the canon were know as the deuterocanonical books. It should be pointed out that it was not until the year 1547 at the council of Trent that the canon was formally defined. That came as a result of Luther and his protestant buddies. Before then there was no need for a formal definition of the canon as the canon of the Vulgate was universally accepted.

 

[Ignatius]

I It should be pointed out that it was not until the year 1547 at the council of Trent that the canon was formally defined. That came as a result of Luther and his protestant buddies. Before then there was no need for a formal definition of the canon as the canon of the Vulgate was universally accepted.

That is incorrect. Pope Damasus I in AD 382 decreed the Canon, and many councils down through the ages, concluding with the Dogmatic declaration of Trent, affirmed this same Canon of Caripture.

Canon of Scripture
The CANON Holy Scripture was declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
The list of the Scriptures . . .

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

This Council of Carthage affirms the Decree of Damasus, sending its affirmation and the rest of the canons adopted at its proceedings to Rome for ratification.

418: Pope Boniface I ratifies the canons of the Council of Carthage and sends copies to the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, resulting in informal acceptance of the canon world-wide.

419: The Fourth Council of Carthage re-affirms the actions of Pope Boniface. Canonical discussions remain mostly settled for the next three centuries.

787: The Second Council of Nicea formally ratifies the canon for the Eastern Churches.

1546: The Council of Trent again re-affirms the Scriptures traditionally recognized by the Church.

 

[cottice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
I It should be pointed out that it was not until the year 1547 at the council of Trent that the canon was formally defined. That came as a result of Luther and his protestant buddies. Before then there was no need for a formal definition of the canon as the canon of the Vulgate was universally accepted.

That is incorrect. Pope Damasus I in AD 382 decreed the Canon, and many councils down through the ages, concluding with the Dogmatic declaration of Trent, affirmed this same Canon of Caripture.

Canon of Scripture
The CANON Holy Scripture was declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
The list of the Scriptures . . .

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

This Council of Carthage affirms the Decree of Damasus, sending its affirmation and the rest of the canons adopted at its proceedings to Rome for ratification.

418: Pope Boniface I ratifies the canons of the Council of Carthage and sends copies to the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, resulting in informal acceptance of the canon world-wide.

419: The Fourth Council of Carthage re-affirms the actions of Pope Boniface. Canonical discussions remain mostly settled for the next three centuries.

787: The Second Council of Nicea formally ratifies the canon for the Eastern Churches.

1546: The Council of Trent again re-affirms the Scriptures traditionally recognized by the Church.

First of all the council of Rome was not a General Council but rather a local synod just like the ones at Hippo and Carthage a few years later. Being a local council the synod failed to meet the requisites for infallibility as it lacked universality. The canon of scripture was also defined at the council of Florence [about 100 years before trent] but the canons of that council were directed to a particular Eastern Rite church and therefore also lacked the requisite of universality. In about 408 AD Pope innocent I responded to a letter from a bishop in France concerning the Canon and listed the 73 books also. But again this was a private letter and lacked the requisite universality needed for infallibility. Trent was a General Council of the whole church and thus met the requirement for universality.

 

[michaelhager]

First of all the council of Rome was not a General Council but rather a local synod just like the ones at Hippo and Carthage a few years later. Being a local council the synod failed to meet the requisites for infallibility as it lacked universality. The canon of scripture was also defined at the council of Florence [about 100 years before trent] but the canons of that council were directed to a particular Eastern Rite church and therefore also lacked the requisite of universality. In about 408 AD Pope innocent I responded to a letter from a bishop in France concerning the Canon and listed the 73 books also. But again this was a private letter and lacked the requisite universality needed for infallibility. Trent was a General Council of the whole church and thus met the requirement for universality.

However, Pope St. Damasus I decreed that the Canon of scripture agreed to at the Council of Rome was inerrant, and then three separate, other local synods agreed and ratified the Canon, followed by Pope Boniface I ratifying the findings of the Council of Carthage. There was an awful lot of agreement among a variety of synods and several popes that although a general council was not held for the purpose, it is quite evident that the majority of the Church agreed with the Canon as laid out by these councils at the latest, by the year 420.

There can really be no doubt that the Church, and by extension, the rest of the Christian world fully accepted this Canon by this time.