Ask Me Help Desk - Canon of Scripture

As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether.

Since it seems that many here refer to the Bible as their final authority on Christian doctrine, I would like to know how you believe the Bible came to be.

It seems that some believe the Bible dropped from heaven with both Old and New Testaments in hard cover form with neat gold trim and the words of Christ in red. ;)

But the reality is quite different: For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419.

So again, I'm wondering how people can embrace the Bible but then ignore the Church authority that defined the Canon?

Good points, Scott. And to add a bit:
* Up to the 4th Century the Canon was debated much before it was agreed upon by the church.

* There was no debate or questioning the canon for the next 1000+ years.

* Only 1500 years after Christ did some Christians (today called Protestants) decide that the Canon should be changed.

Interestingly too: All books are now included in many "protestant" versions of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

* Up to the 4th Century the Canon was debated much before it was agreed upon by the church.

Actually, no.

It was agreed upon by the WEST, but the East did not agree... but this only goes to reinforce my idea that the Bible was not the final authority on Christian doctrine (sola scriptura) since there was a continuing debate as to what "qualified" as Scripture.

A great study on this from an Orthodox perspective:
"In this formative period the Epistle to the Hebrews did not obtain a firm footing in the Canon of the Universal Church. At Rome it was not yet recognized as canonical, as shown by the Muratorian catalogue of Roman origin; Irenæus probably cites it, but makes no reference to a Pauline origin. Yet it was known at Rome as early as St. Clement, as the latter's epistle attests. The Alexandrian Church admitted it as the work of St. Paul, and canonical. The Montanists favoured it, and the aptness with which 6:4-8, lent itself to the Montanist and Novatianist rigour was doubtless one reason why it was suspect in the West. Also during this period the excess over the minimal Canon composed of the Gospels and thirteen epistles varied. The seven Catholic Epistles (James, Jude, 1 and 2 Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for their canonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts 1 Peter, 1 John (to which 2 and 3 John were probably attached), and Revelation. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Revelation form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Revelation."
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/bo...ooks_new_1.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottRC

... For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't.

Indeed. Not only were all bible books written by (I assume well-willing) human beings, but later they were selected by human beings on what should be considered God's word and what should not.

That does not seem to be much of a support for the Christian deity that is suggested to be omniscient and omni-powerful.
Not omniscient as (s)he does not seem to have foreseen all the infighting on what would be his/her words and what not) , and not omni-powerful, as a simple one-off production and one-time distribution of non-contradicting and mistake-free bibles should have been only a finger click for a deity that is claimed to have created an entire universe in only a couple of days.

So what went wrong? If for the sake of argument we assume there is a supra-natural deity, than the Deist deity view shows more validity than the Christian version.
But may be one can even take one further step, and conclude that both the Deists and Theists views have little or no validity...

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Indeed. Not only were all bible books written by (I assume well-willing) human beings, but later they were selected by human beings on what should be considered God's word and what should not.

Yep... well said.

Quote:

That does not seem to be much of a support for the Christian deity that is suggested to be omniscient and omni-powerful.

That's quite a leap... and simply based upon your assumption that all Christians believe a certain way... I imagine you have some sort of backround dealing with Protestant "Bible-believers" and this has distorted your thinking.

Traditional Christianity does not view God in this way... and uses faith AND reason as the philosophical foundation of our faith.

We don't need God to drop off a completed, perfect Bible... he left us the CHURCH to guide us ---- and you have seen the errors of those who decided they didn't want to remain in the Church.

Thanks for your comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottRC

We don't need God to drop off a completed, perfect Bible... he left us the CHURCH to guide us.

We don't need God at all, as far as I am concerned. Who needs a deity of which the strongest point is it's hiding away from humanity ?
An omniscient deity that does not foresee the endless problems the many contradictions and mistakes in what is claimed to be it's own instruction manual for humanity are causing... An omni-powerful deity, that requires humanity to write, copy, upgrade, translate, print, distribute etc. it's own instruction manual for humanity...

And the "church" (that means in this respect the RCC) is one more thing that can be missed as toothache with all it's intolerant, violent and bloodthirsty history, and un-Christian selfishness over the approx. 2000 years of it's existence.

My conclusion (and of course you may come to another conclusion) : what self-confident person needs such a deity and such a church??

:rolleyes:

·

[
My conclusion (and of course you may come to another conclusion) : what self-confident person needs such a deity and such a church??

:rolleyes:

·[/QUOTE]

You do Cred!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galveston1

You do Cred!

No I don't, Galveston. I do not believe in myth and unsupported heresay !

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_kendle

Lets just say that God, as a creator being or whatever, is perfect.

No. Let's not just say that. That is only BELIEF and nothing else. There is no reason at all to just say that, but all the reason to question that !

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_kendle

That is how he is depicted.

A good reason to review the arguments for that depiction...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_kendle

For a perfect being to create something means that whatever it creates is going to be less perfect than the perfect creator.

A perfect entity can only create perfect "whatevers". If it can create anything less perfect, it is itself less perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_kendle

You cannot ever improve upon perfection, so we are inherently screwed.

You can not improve on perfection. Granted. But that does not mean that anything created by a perfect creator should be less perfect. That is a fallacy only required to explain the many problems with the christian dogma.

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

We don't need God at all, as far as I am concerned. Who needs a deity of which the strongest point is it's hiding away from humanity ?

I find it sad that you believe He is "hiding away" from you... but I'm hopeful that you're educated enough to understand that your personal experience is simply just that --- yours.

Quote:

An omniscient deity that does not foresee the endless problems the many contradictions and mistakes in what is claimed to be it's own instruction manual for humanity are causing... An omni-powerful deity, that requires humanity to write, copy, upgrade, translate, print, distribute etc. it's own instruction manual for humanity...

Huh?

Quote:

And the "church" (that means in this respect the RCC) is one more thing that can be missed as toothache with all it's intolerant, violent and bloodthirsty history, and un-Christian selfishness over the approx. 2000 years of it's existence.

... and all the good. I don't expect my Church to be perfect, that you do is simply (again) your opinion.

Quote:

My conclusion (and of course you may come to another conclusion) : what self-confident person needs such a deity and such a church??

A truly self-confident person would not lament over a God that they believe is "hidden away", confusing, etc etc... a truly self-confident person would just live their life and not whine about fairy tails... unless inside they know they are deceiving themselves.

Your results may vary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

* Only 1500 years after Christ did some Christians (today called Protestants) decide that the Canon should be changed.

Actually the decision to change it was a decision to add more books, which was made by the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Actually the decision to change it was a decision to add more books, which was made by the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent.

Books were not added at the Council of Trent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

Books were not added at the Council of Trent.

My copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent disagrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

Books were not added at the Council of Trent.

Exactly... it's sad that some are so biased that they let their denominational pride influence their thinking instead of just using common sense.

Council of Trent
Fourth Session
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. 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. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

For the claim of "additions" of books to be true, the onus of the person making this false claim would be to show that previous Bibles DID NOT contain these books... and that's just simply absurd:

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

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise 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 Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

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.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."
(canon 36 A.D. 393). At about this time St. Jerome started using the Hebrew text as a source for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.

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. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees."
(canon 47 A.D. 397).

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils...

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible...

SESSION 11 4 February 1442:
"We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ's sheep', had abbot Andrew carefully examined by some outstanding men of this sacred council on the articles of the faith, the sacraments of the church and certain other matters pertaining to salvation. At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine. Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.
It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John." The Council of Florence was held over 100 years before the Council of Trent, and about 80 years before the start of the reformation.

It is interesting that for 1500 years all Christians accepted the same canon for the Old Testament. Only in the last 480 years, since the reformation, has there been disagreement from Protestants.

A person advocating this obviously false claim should be able to answer these questions as well:

The Council of Trent in 1546-1565 "added" the 7 books.
If so, then how could Luther have removed them 20 years earlier if they were not there?
How could Trent have added them if they were already in the Latin Vulgate from 404 A.D.?

Luther did not remove the 7 books, the Jews did at Jamnia, so they weren't there to begin with.
If they were never there to begin with, then how do you explain the fact that they are, and always have been, in the Latin Vulgate, which has been in use by the Catholic Church for over 1500 years?
Explain why so many history books are wrong, by saying Luther removed them during the reformation? I must ask also, "By what authority does a Jewish Council, which was convened decades after the dawn of Christianity, have any claim regarding the nature of Christian doctrine?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

If there is any "strawman" here, it is Jeremy's ! All further posts were based on that .

Fair enough... I'd prefer to stay on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottRC

Exactly.... it's sad that some are so biased that they let their denominational pride influence their thinking instead of just using common sense.

Perhaps instead of insulting those who disagree, maybe you should check your quote regarding the Council of Trent. And if indeed the Council of Trent was simply acknowledging what in the Vulgate, why did it remove the Prayer of Manasseh and 1st and 2nd Esdras?

As for the claim that inclusion of these books in with copies of the Bible is "proof", many non-Catholic Bibles have also included these books as reference material only. Indeed if we assume that whatever is bound with canon is also canon, then we would have to assume that documents assembled as reference material with study Bibles is likewise canonical.

We have been through this so many times lately, but for some reason, we need to keep treading over the same ground.

Several insulting posts were deleted, I don't won't to close another thread unless I have to.

Some members are at risk with insults of others and very insulting comments in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

My copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent disagrees.

The Council of Trent only affirmed what the Christian Church had taught for well over a millennium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

The Council of Trent only affirmed what the Christian Church had taught for well over a millennium.

Well said...

To me, the ONLY valid objection would be based upon the canonicity of the Books in question... to assert that they were added is simply false.

I wonder why modern non-Catholic Christians don't DEMAND these books are put back in their Bibles?

Seems contrary to their normal degree of love and reverence for the Bible... I guess being as far away from Catholicism is more important than anything.:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

The Council of Trent only affirmed what the Christian Church had taught for well over a millennium.

You did not address the point that I raised that puts a hole in that theory - why did Trent not agree with the apocrypha included in the Vulgate, if indeed the Vulgate's inclusion of these books was proof of their inclusion in the canon?