But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.

So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.

The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:

Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.

Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…

Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.

Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.

Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.

In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….

The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.

“Call me when you actually advance arguments that you believe are authoritative and we can have a substantive discussion.”

How childish. Why should I put forward anything further when the entire basis of your argument is undone? If the Pope has no historical supremacy, then the argument you are here putting forward (that I ought to be in submission to SOMEbody as long as it isn’t GOD) is already refuted. You are therefore asking me to “submit” to someone I consider “authoritative,” even when the Roman Church has no “authority” according to its own Popes, whom you are in rebellion against!

But as to “who do I submit to,” I would liked to have had the opportunity to sit and learn from Ignatius, who died a Bishop appointed by one of the Apostles DIRECTLY. It would be something to hear from him what it is like to die a man, being eaten by lions. Much better than dying a Papist, who is eaten by his Pope.

“If the Pope has no historical supremacy, then the argument you are here putting forward (that I ought to be in submission to SOMEbody as long as it isn’t GOD)”

Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three. Hence my question, “which one of these three are you in submission to?”

You turn around and say, no, I’m not in submission to any of these three - which refutes your argument right there.

You don’t believe that the Church is divided equally between the three. This whole line of inquiry is a smokescreen.

What you do believe is that you, and you alone is the primary authority and that nobody tells you what you should believe and why.

“I would liked to have had the opportunity to sit and learn from Ignatius, who died a Bishop appointed by one of the Apostles DIRECTLY. It would be something to hear from him what it is like to die a man, being eaten by lions. Much better than dying a Papist, who is eaten by his Pope.”

And you lie when you say this. You have no intention of submitting yourself to anyone. :)

As for the claims of the Catholic church, I’ll be happy to discuss this with you when you are in submission to one of the three that you have claimed that you believe are the true authority.

“dissent from which necessarily makes one a renegade. Which is not what Scripture teaches.” Which is exactly what scripture does teach. But feel free. “The flesh availeth nothing”.

Then you have just nuked the church, which began in dissent from the very magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, as they followed a holy anointed man in a hairy garment in the desert eating insects, but who preached a Scriptural message by the power of God, and reproved those so sat in magisterial authority, and claimed that God could raise up children to Abraham from stones (not the Rolling Stones).

And who pointed to another holy "renegade," an itinerant preacher from Galilee, whose authority the official magisterium rejected, (Mk. 11:28-33) and who was reproved by this Nazarene, but who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And the Scriptures He invoked in "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" were established as such without an assuredly infallible magisterium, but due to their Divine qualities and attestation, like as a true man of God is.

And by raising up men from without the magisterium (as important as that is) to reprove them truth was preserved, and thus the church itself began, but after the same manner it has been preserved. And at the time of the Reformation Rome certainly was worthy of reproof, and forced a separation due to her hard hearted impenitence.

“RC scholars did not see the canon as settled”

The issue of the canonicity of these books was settled by Pope Damasus and the publication of the Vulgate. Catejan confirms this to be the case.

“Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty”

Oh sure, they don’t have all the OT books. Neither do they have all the NT books either. What is significant is that they make no distinction between the two.

If, as you argue, there is a distinction made between these two sets of books, then we should see this distinction in the earliest manuscripts. We do not. Ergo, I can only conclude that there is no distinction made. At least not in the 3rd century.

Now, if your thesis were in fact correct, we would expect to see none of these books appear, and the precise list of Luther appear. We do not. Ergo, your assertion that the Catholic church added books to the canon is incorrect.

“Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous”

Ohoho, you just stated that RC scholars said the issue was not settled. Now you are saying that, according to the Church, it was settled. Thank you. This is a significant admission.

“Luther’s dissent was by no means novel in scholarship.”

In rejecting the authority of the Magisterium (something Jerome did not do), it was novel.

“The latter is the issue, as you speak for yourself, while if the church had settled the canon as you suppose, then there would have been no debate among RC scholars even in Trent, regardless of your denial of it.”

Again, Catejan states the truth - that the Canon was set by Pope Damasus. Trent says the same and simply affirms that the Magisterium was in agreement. And had always been in agreement.

That some Catholic scholars like Luther were in dissent doesn’t change the truth. That Luther rejected the authority of the Magisterium doesn’t change that Luther
was in dissent.

“Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.”

Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier.

It is enough, however, that it is not ONE reigning over the entire Church. And therefore, the Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.

Your argument that “Well, you still don’t AGREE with Gregory!!” is pure childishness. You don’t agree with Gregory either, but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium. Why do I have to agree with everything Gregory says when your entire premise of authority is undone by him? If the Roman Catholic church is true, then its traditions and history should be unbroken. Instead, we do not see this consistency, and you are, in fact, partaking of “anti-Christ” when you kneel to the Universal Bishop of Rome:

“In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. ~ Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604)

Now, do I believe that those three Bishops were in authority over the western church? I cannot tell you what all their doctrines were, (though even Gregory opposed Priestly forgiveness of sins) but the concept of the Primacy of Peter is also an innovation, as no such concept existed in any of the writings of Ignatius, Clement or Polycarp, who lived through the 1st century and into part of the second.

Who should I “submit” to? To Gregory who believed the innovation that Peter was First, and therefore the See of Peter had special authority over the Western Church beneath the feet of THREE Bishops? Or should I believe Ignatius, who argued that the head of the Bishop is God? Or should I believe the Apostles, who declared that the head of the Church is Christ?

If God is all sovereign over salvation, I would do better to follow Christ than any living sinner.

“Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three.”

You’re free to do so. But since they’re all DEAD and their successors all in REBELLION, you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.

“This whole line of inquiry”

The whole basis of Papal authority is a SMOKESCREEN, I agree.

“Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier”

Thank you. Now that we’ve dispensed of that argument, we can move on.

“Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.”

If it was not always in existance, when was it created?

“but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium”

I never claimed any such thing. Not here on earth, no.

I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins and that he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. I claim through Apostolic succession, that the Catholic church now headed by Pope Francis is an unbroken succession of bishops all the way back to St. Peter.

“you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.”

Does one submit to Das Kapital, or does one submit to Marx?

“we can move on.”

You can move on, right off the cliff with those spurious arguments of yours.

“If it was not always in existance, when was it created?”

Not before Gregory, that much is certain.

“I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins “

I like Jerome’s correction of this:

“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could discover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened. — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.

“he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. “

Nowhere does Peter claim to be the leader of the Apostles, nor is he treated as such.

For example, in Acts 15 it is James, not Peter, who presides over the council and makes the final judgment that the church embraces. It is Paul who confronts Peter “to his face,” when Peter was in error. And it is Peter who declares that all believers are rocks (stones) building up the house of Christ, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.

According to Romish theology, Peter should have presided over any council. Paul could not have confronted Peter as an equal. And lastly, only Peter, not the body as a whole, and not Christ, is the chief cornerstone.

And it is for that reason that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement writing in the 1st and 2nd centuries mention no Papacy, and why several hundred years later, Gregory, in his worst heresy, is still no promoter of Roman Popery as we know it today.

What you believe or feel is irrelevant.

“Not before Gregory, that much is certain.”

So sayeth the prophet GPH?

“when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened”

So you accept then that Priests can absolve sins. Thank you. I’m glad we are making progress!

“Nowhere does Peter claim to be the leader of the Apostles, nor is he treated as such.”

Yes, Jesus appoints Peter.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

MT 16:18.

“Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement writing in the 1st and 2nd centuries mention no Papacy”

Do they mention a Bishop of Rome?

You wrote:

“It seems that your argument is that an assuredly inspired magisterium...”

No such thing nor does the Church claim any such thing. It is pathetic when anti-Catholics don’t even know what they’re arguing for or against.

“...is necessary to establish writings as Divinely inspired, and for that matter, to sanction men of God as having authority. Thus those without it are spurious.”

When you learn what the Magisterium is, get back to me.

“You can’t point to one source as the authority for the NT and then turn away for the OT.”

I don’t point to the Catholic church as a source of authority for either. In fact, I’m certain that I’ve disputed the authority of the Catholic church on the matter in this very thread.

If the Catholics have canonized the same NT books that the rest of Christians accept as authoritative by our own standards, then it is a happy coincidence, as far as I’m concerned. At least that is one less thing for us to disagree about.

“So you accept then that Priests can absolve sins. Thank you. I’m glad we are making progress!”

As usual, your lack of reading comprehension surfaces to annoy me. The Apostles could not absolve sins. That is something that belongs to God only. To say otherwise is to open us up to the just accusation of heresy:

Mar_2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

The reference is to their binding and loosing, officially, as the Priests of the Old Testament did in making lepers either clean or unclean, but not that they gave them leprosy or cleansed their leprosy.

“Yes, Jesus appoints Peter.”

Tell that to James, who usurped his role in Acts 15, and Paul.

If neither of them understood it as Rome does, then the Roman view must be false.

Therefore, the rock, which is in the feminine form, must either be Peter’s confession. Or, the promise is that Peter would be the first to begin establishing the church, as he does in Acts, but not in the sense of his ruling the Church, for all Christians are called rocks of the church obedient to the Chief Cornerstone, which is Christ, not any particular man.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

“Do they mention a Bishop of Rome?”

Ignatius doesn’t, neither does Polycarp. In fact, Ignatius, when writing to Polycarp, calls the head of Polycarp God, and not the Pope or any Bishop of Rome. Not even in Ignatius’s letter to the church of Rome is the Bishop even mentioned. Clement mentions Peter, listing him among the other Apostles who died mightily for the faith. No primacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter are mentioned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.