Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
>> “Tyndale’s translation was superior to the KJV, in that his goal was accuracy, while the KJV’s goal was to support the Anglican Church.” <<
.
Amazing what a little political power can do...
Probably the strongest point that can be made for the KJV is that it became widely available at the time that English was becoming the undisputed language of commerce throughout the world, resulting in the KJV becoming the basis of translations into over 40 eastern languages, and bringing God’s word to a hungry world.
I have little desire to discuss baptism.
My point is that if people believe that baptism will save them, they may never be saved.
.
That there is One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things seen and unseen.
In One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, light from light, true God from true God.
Begotten not made, of one being with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.
And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.
In the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets.
And that's just the problem. The writings from the Apostles were inspired of the Holy Spirit from the time the ink dried on the page....NOT when, centuries later some councils recognized them as such (much less relying on modern textual critics to approve...). Evidence from Ignatius (d. AD 110) and even before...shows that the Church ALREADY recognized the Apostolic writings as holy scripture, 300 years before the Counsils of Carthage voted on it...
What's incredible is the idea that the Church wandered around for 300 years having NO IDEA what was holy Scripture, and what was not....until a council magically declared that certain books were.
As to the Apocrypha (that's Saint Jerome's name for it, by the way, NOT a Protestant invention) these were books the Jews had excluded--and never formally made a part of their canon. From the Septuigint (LXX) on, (ca. 250-130 BC) evidence suggests the Jews considered the canon closed...except for some quibblings about some of the less important books.
The question for the Church was, do we accept the canon as given to us, (following St. Paul's principle in Romans 3:2 "... the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.") OR do we think it takes a magical council 1500 years later (TRENT) to make books official?
That same council, by the way, said, unequivocally, that anyone who trusts in Christ alone by faith alone (that would be most Protestants)....is forever cursed. (No ifs, ands or buts). Of course since Vatican II, Rome has backpeddled...claiming Protestants are NOT cursed to Hell. Which is authoritative though? Are we going to Hell, or not?
Popes, Councils and the Church have ALL erred, and do definitely in history provably contradict each other. Thank God His Word is perfect, and pure, and always has been.
Actually, that’s not what he’s saying. Remember that along with the Matthew, Mark, luke and John you had the Gospels of Thomas and Philip floating about. You also had very orthodox works like the Sherpherd of Hermas. Would you say any of these were inspired?
“With regard to Tyndale’s translation, Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s Bible.”
That was wickedness on the part of Thomas More, who knew better. There was nothing wrong with Tyndale’s translation, apart from the mortal errors that come with any man attempting anything. They were lying, and doing so to protect their hierarchy. Thomas More’s hatred for non-Catholics is a huge blot on his legacy.
For example, More protested that Tyndale used elder instead of bishop. Tyndale’s reply was that Erasmus did the same thing, and for the same reason: that is what the word means. More’s reply was that it was OK for Erasmus, because Erasmus wasn’t a heretic.
Henry VIII wasn’t known for his rational arguments, either! The ‘Great Bible’ he authorized had Tyndale’s NT, other than changes of the words for church & bishop to satisfy the church hierarchy. The KJV followed it, for the same reason. It was King James who said, “No Bishop, No King!”
The pictures I posted were from the original 1526 edition. Notice the notes? No? There weren’t any. Notes would have required extra printing cost. A previous attempted printing had included notes, but it didn’t make the market.
The preface to Tyndale’s NT read, in total:
“The New Testament as it was written, and caused to be written, by them which heard it. To whom also our saviour Christ Jesus commanded that they should preach it unto all creatures.”
If that is heresy, then I’m a heretic and proud to be one!
Regarding cost, in 1274 a Latin Bible cost 30 pounds. By the 1420s, a hand written Wycliffe New Testament was less than 3 pounds. A complete one ran 7-10 pounds. And the difference is even greater, because the inflation that caused the Peasant’s Revolt in the 1300s would have raised the price I’m comparing much higher than 30 pounds.
But in the 1520s, Tyndale’s New Testament ran under 0.15 pounds (7 groats). With distribution and shipping costs to towns around England, the price rose to about 1/3 of a pound - just 1% of the cost of a Latin Bible from 1274, and that doesn’t allow for the 150 years of inflation. And there are records of Tyndale’s complete NT selling for under two shillings.
“Later editions of it, without the prologue, had a general use even among Catholics -as far, of course, as the laborious transcription by hand in the pre- printing press days would permit the multiplication of copies.”
More precisely, copies without notes were impossible to discern as Wycliffe’s, since it was a perfectly good translation of the Latin.
My point is that recognition of inspiration, should not be confused with officially declaring, or making something inspired.
Apostolic authority was handed down in written form...therefore books like Shepherd of Hermas (which no one ever claimed had an Apostolic origin—and dates from the mid 2nd Century) which, while good, were never recognized as scripture....at least in any widespread sense.
As for the “Gospels” of Thomas or Philip, they had Gnostic origins, and were no more accepted as scripture by the Church than we accept the Book of the Mormon today (they were from a from a rival religion after all).
In fact, one of the major criteria for the later councils’ recognition, was universal acceptance historically...and none of the books you mentioned was a contender.
My point is, far from being a black and white process where all these books are floating around...and no one knows what is scripture or not, until a council said so...the canonization process was an organic process of growth of certainty.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Acts, having 1st Century, provable, Apostolic origins were pretty well all accepted, by all Church leaders who knew these books...from the beginning. The letters of Paul too, were clearly accepted from the earliest days. The quibbling that did occur was over James, and Hebrews (no one knew for sure who the author was...) 2nd, 3rd John, and (wild & difficult to understand) Revelation—and a few other very small (1 and 2 page) epistles, which make no new doctrinal difference. If you counted the pages of books which were debated, I doubt you’d find much more than 5% of the New Testament.
The core, Paul certain other epistles, the Acts, and the 4 Gospels were, evidence shows, were ALWAYS trusted, and fully recognized as having the high and heavy authority, written down, of the Apostles themselves.
Just look at the dates of the other “gospels,” Gnostic, and other. All of them are 100+ years later—and the scholars of late antiquity were smart enough to know that—and therefore unless you were a Gnostic (that is a member of a counter-Christian cult), you didn’t accept them.
Plus the Church was still persecuted, weak and humble...not an imperial power (or even legal) in the 2nd and 3rd Century—when the canon complete appeared and was recognized. There was no nefarious mysterious power play to choose the books of the bible for some dark reason. The New Testament was the product of the Apostles and recognized by the persecuted Church, not Constantine’s imagined compromised one. It didn’t take a council or two to “create” the bible, it already existed, inspired of the Holy Spirit, for those with the eyes to see, and the ears to hear.
Here and in your other responses you contend that such exhortations were only for hearing the Scriptures, presumably in church, which, if that were the case, Rome was much negligent in providing a real literacy in by way of, while it also hindered it to varying degrees, in contrast to her later position.
However, your attempt to construe Chrysostom and Jerome to fit your position that exhortations were only for hearing the Scriptures is surprising, as some of your fellow apologists* invoke them for support of personal reading, as do higher officials.
Contrary to your restriction of Chrysostom, he states in Homily 2 on Matthew
For, tell me, who of you that stand here, if he were required, could repeat one Psalm, or any other portion of the divine Scriptures? There is not one.
And it is not this only that is the grievous thing, but that while you have become so backward with respect to things spiritual, yet in regard of what belongs to Satan you are more vehement than fire. Thus should any one be minded to ask of you songs of devils and impure effeminate melodies, he will find many that know these perfectly, and repeat them with much pleasure.
10. But what is the answer to these charges? "I am not," you will say, "one of the monks, but I have both a wife and children, and the care of a household." Why, this is what has ruined all, your supposing that the reading of the divine Scriptures appertains to those only, when you need it much more than they. For they that dwell in the world, and each day receive wounds, these have most need of medicines. So that it is far worse than not reading, to account the thing even "superfluous:" for these are the words of diabolical invention. Hear ye not Paul saying, "that all these things are written for our admonition"? 1 Corinthians 10:11
And you, if you had to take up a Gospel, would not choose to do so with hands unwashed; but the things that are laid up within it, do you not think to be highly necessary? It is because of this, that all things are turned upside down.
For if you would learn how great is the profit of the Scriptures, examine yourself, what you become by hearing Psalms, and what by listening to a song of Satan; and how you are disposed when staying in a Church, and how when sitting in a theatre; and you will see that great is the difference between this soul and that, although both be one
Chrysostom on Col. 3:16,
Let it dwell in you,” he saith, “richly,” not simply dwell, but with great abundance. Hearken ye, as many as are worldly, and have the charge of wife and children; how to you too he commits especially the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness...
Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and 301procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...
This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? - Homily IX. Colossians iii. 16, 17
Also, in Homily XX on Ephesians by Chrysostom,
If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.
As for Jerome (who did emphasize the need for teachers), no less than POPE BENEDICT XV, while placing the priority on ecclesiastics being Scripturally literate, includes all, asserting in in SPIRITUS PARACLITUS,
Jerome - "strenuous Catholic, learned in the Scriptures,"[2] "teacher of Catholics,"[3] "model of virtue, world's teacher"[4] - has by his earnest and illuminative defense of Catholic doctrine on Holy Scripture left us most precious instructions. These we propose to set before you and so promote among the children of the Church, and especially among the clergy, assiduous and reverent study of the Bible — http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html
Also, Pope Pius XII, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU (Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Promulgated On September 30, 1943),
Pius X most heartily commended the society of St. Jerome, which strives to promote among the faithful -- and to facilitate with all its power -- the truly praiseworthy custom of reading and meditating on the holy Gospels; he exhorted them to persevere in the enterprise they had begun, proclaiming it "a most useful undertaking, as well as most suited to the times," seeing that it helps in no small way "to dissipate the idea that the Church is opposed to or in any way impedes the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular."[20] [Letter to the Most Eminent Cardinal Casetta Oui piam, Jan. 21, 1907; Pii X Acta IV, pp. 23-25.]
And Benedict XV, on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of the death of St. Jerome, the greatest Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures, after having most solemnly inculcated the precepts and examples of the same Doctor, as well as the principles and rules laid down by Leo XIII and by himself, and having recommended other things highly opportune and never to be forgotten in this connection, exhorted "all the children of the Church, especially clerics, to reverence the Holy Scripture, to read it piously and meditate it constantly"; he reminded them "that in these pages is to be sought that food, by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection," and "that the chief use of Scripture pertains to the holy and fruitful exercise of the ministry of preaching"; he likewise once again expressed his warm approval of the work of the society called after St. Jerome himself, by means of which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are being so widely diffused, "that there is no Christian family any more without them and that all are accustomed to read and meditate them daily."[21] [Encyclical Letter Spiritus Paraclitus] — http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12DIVIN.HTM
Concurring,
And Iraneous in “Against Heresies,”
"Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever." Daniel 12:3 Thus, then, I have shown it to be, if any one read the Scriptures. For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves "that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world." And the disciple will be perfected, and [rendered] like the householder, "who brings forth from his treasure things new and old." — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm
While the Scriptures certain were more rare, and more treasured, God will provide those with them who seek Him with their whole heart, and it is not simply a certain few that He inspires by texts as " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11) While also establishing the need for teachers.
More: http://www.saintjonah.org/chrysostom_scripture.htm On reliance On BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY, RESTRICTIONS ON (Schaff)
*http://www.faithofthefathersapologetics.blogspot.com http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/
You posted: To question and challenge can be to attack to some. If you are challenging someone’s deeply held faith in a false religion, challenging its basic beliefs and assumptions, how can it not be viewed as an attack by the person who holds the belief?
***
If it is done in the spirit of love I believe many (not all, sadly) will understand and not see it as an attack. That does not mean they will be persuaded, of course. And, in matters of faith, force really is not effective, no matter how high the stakes. One must believe because one believes, not because another insists on that belief.
The Lollards, for instance, did not hesitate to introduce into certain copies of the pious and orthodox Commentary on the Psalms by the hermit of Hampole interpolations of their own of the most virulently controversial kind (MSS. Trin. Coll. Camb. B.V. 25, Brit. Mus. Reg. 18. C. 26, &c.), and although the text of their Biblical versions was faithful and true, the General Prologue of the Later Version was interlarded with controversial matter.The English ‘Bibles fair and old’ referred to by Thomas More were copies of the later Wycliffite version. There was nothing in the translation itself that smacked of Lollardy or any other form of ‘heresy’, and the copies bore no indication of the translators’ identity. Many bishops would feel quite happy to grant permission for the possession and use of such copies.
For if you would learn how great is the profit of the Scriptures, examine yourself, what you become by hearing psalmsHence the statement that you copied from the "Schaff-Herzog" encyclopedia Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity is incorrect self-interpretation of John Chrysostom's works by whoever wrote the 'Schaff-Herzog' encyclopedia
Yes, for a word from the divine Scriptures, made to sound in the ear, does more than fire soften the hardened soul, and renders it fit for all good things
Let us not therefore despise the hearing of the divine Scriptures.
Looking also at Roman Egypt with its intense official demand for documentation, A.E. Hanson ("Ancient illiteracy") uses the evidence of papyri, incuding a selection published here for the first time, to examine how large numbers of illiterate and semi-literate people functioned in a world that required writing. What emerges from her analysis is the importance of social networks in enabling Egypt's peasant and sub-elite population to participate in a stratified, bilingual society. While the focus of these two final essays is similar, there are signal and intriguing differences between them. To Hopkins, the levels of literacy Harris believes were reached in the ancient world are remarkably high in world history and need explaining. Thus, citing the roster of an auxiliary unit of camel troops from Egypt, one-third of whose members signed their names, Hopkins comments positively that fully one-third of these troopers were literate. But Hanson, referring to the same set of signatures, emphasizes that fully two-thirds were illiterate.Or, In Ehrman's book titled Misquoting Jesus it is claimed that
"...at the very best of times and places--for example, Athens at the height of the classical period in the fifth century B.C.E--literacy rates were rarely higher than 10-15 percent of the population" (Page 37)While, I personally doubt such a low figure for the Roman Empire, I would agree that if one takes into consideration that one-third to one-half the population were slaves, and women were mostly not educated, then a figure of 25% literate is believable, perhaps even 40% in the Roman World at the time of Christ, however, it was still a vastly illerate society, so stating that one must READ the scripture is definitely incorrect. Studying the scripture, just like the ancient Jews did by recitation or hearing it read aloud is far more likely
“About Tyndale’s bible — you are correct that there is no heresy, though the excerpt you gave is not the extent of his prologue which include notes of contempt towards authority, which is why Henry 8 condemned him.”
Maybe another edition had a longer prologue. The “Original Spelling Edition” of the 1526 printing claims to have everything included, with the title page taken from the Stuttgart copy - the only surviving copy with the title page intact. The facsimile copy sold with the British Museum doesn’t have a title page, IIRC - my copy is somewhere, but my wife decided to rearrange our bedroom and it is somewhere in the boxes of books in the hall. ;>(
However, the Lollards were persecuted, and I don’t think their enemies cared if the scripture they were found with had notes or not. The De heretico comburendo, passed in 1401, merely said “...that this wicked sect, preachings, doctrines, and opinions, should from henceforth cease and he utterly destroyed; by the assent of the great lords and other noble persons of the said realm, being in the said Pariament, hatth granted, established, and ordained, from henceforth firmly to be observed, that none within the said realm or any other dominions subject to his Roval Majesty, presume to preach openly or privily, without the license of the diocesan of the same place first required and obtained, curates in their own churches and persons hitherto privileged, and other of the Canon Law granted, only except; nor that none from henceforth anything preach, hold, teach, or instruct openly or privily, or make or write any book contrary to the catholic faith or determination of the Holy Church, nor of such sect and wicked doctrines and opinions shall make any conventicles, or in any wise hold or exercise schools; and also that none from henceforth in any wise favor such preacher or maker of any such and like conventicles, or persons holding or exercising schools, or making or writing such books, or so teaching, informing, or exciting the people, nor any of them maintain or in any wise sustain, and that all and singular having such books or any writings of such wicked doctrine and opinions, shall really with effect deliver or cause to be delivered all such books and writings to the diocesan of the same place within forty days from the time of the proclamation of this ordinance and statute.”
http://www.ric.edu/faculty/rpotter/heretico.html
The penalty? “...then the sheriff of the county of the same place, and mayor and sheriffs, or sheriff, or mayor and bailiffs of the city, town, and borough of the same county next to the same diocesan or the said commissaries, shal1 be personally present in preferring of such sentences, when they by the same diocesan or his comissaries shall be required; and they the same persons and every of them, after such sentence promulgate shall receive, and them before the people in an high place cause to be burnt, that such punishment may strike fear into the minds of others, whereby,nosuch wicked doctrine and heretical and erroneous opinions, nor their authors and fautors, in the said realm and dominions, against the Catholic faith, Christian law, and determination of the holy church, which God prohibit, be sustained or in any way suffered...”
As a Baptist, I find the mixing of church and state appalling. Of course, anyone holding Baptist-like beliefs (true Baptists didn’t appear in England until the 1600s) could be burned for believing what I believe.
In 1408, it became illegal to make a Bible without the approval of the church, and the copies of the Wycliffe Bible made after that date (probably) claim to have been made prior to it.
Frankly, the Lollards largely believed that the scripture itself suffice to condemn the Catholic Church. I would be curious if they actually included many notes, since notes would slow them down and their belief was that scripture was plain enough to condemn various Catholic doctrine by itself.
I’d like to read more about them, but my Amazon.com budget is maxed out for January...this looks interesting:
Unhappily, many of the books run over $100, which is more than I can justify for arguing about English history in the 1300s!
If any are interested, the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards can be found here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Twelve_Conclusions_of_the_Lollards
Google sells ads.
FR doesn’t.
So cough up some dough.
EXCELLENT.
THANKS.
I do.
I think FR should develop a strategic plan to grow and become more reliable. Splitting the time-sensitive core away from the non-time sensitive discussion groups could be part of that strategy.
Once we have a strategy that we agree upon, we need to have a capital campaign separate from the quarterly fund raising. It may be $1 mm or more to properly set up the equipment for FR to run another 10 years. I think we could all raise this sort of money.
Also, I am not against ad revenue, as long as it comports with the values of the membership.
As for Chrysostom, i am amazed that you continue to contend that he could not have been referring to personal reading, but to communal hearing, when his overall exhortations indicates the opposite. This does not mean he expects all in society to be able to have a Bible, but it is presumptuous to disallow that his hearers could not generally do so, or that communal hearing would enable them to study the Scriptures and achieve the literacy he scolded them for not having.
While in Matthew he does refer to hearing of the Scriptures, he also chastens the laity for presuming "the reading of the divine Scriptures" appertains to such as monks, while they needed it more, and marginalizing them was" far worse than not reading."
The context of the exhortation in Ephesians is the home life, and he says not "hear" but "study the Scriptures," while in Col. 3:16 he is exhorting them to "get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers..." for "the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness."
I know of no official RC teaching on this, and no further response is needed if you want to continue to contend this means communal hearing, which is your private interpretation as much as you think the opposite is.
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.