Posted on 07/20/2011 8:06:22 AM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
Since I have studied, lectured on and written material on the "canonicity of Scripture" for 40 years, I read with interest the article by Dr. David J. Lose addressing the origins of the Bible ("Where did the Bible come from?" Huffington Post). I was greatly disappointed.
First, the "Bible" is not one book but a collection of 66 ancient Jewish scrolls from the book of Genesis to the book of the Apocalypse. These ancient scrolls were produced in different times, cultures, languages, political, economic and social orders over a period of almost 2,000 years by 40 different authors. They are grouped in Old Covenant documents (OT) and New Covenant documents (NT).
Second, a single source theory for all 66 books is not possible. Making the basic error of thinking of the Bible as one book, some people like Dan Brown have asserted that the Roman Catholic Church created the Bible. The fact that the both the Old and New Testaments were in existence and received as inspired before Roman Catholicism developed show the silliness of that assertion.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You challenged to produce a “church” that used something other than the current Catholic canon. Both instances I cited showed such. Your dismissal of those facts doesn’t make your ‘facts’ true - but shows them to be incorrect.
BTW, Jerome wanted the vulgate to be 66 books - had you bothered to read - but was over ridden.
And he excluded the apocrypha.
But Cyril had no authority you said, and the canon recognized was not the current Catholic canon.
I can think of only one book that was “received as inspired” and uses that claim as its sole basis of authority.
the challenge was to produce a 66 book Bible before the 16th century. why can’t you just admit no one used a 66 book Bible before the 16th century? it’s OK, the truth will set you free!
There were various canons used in various areas of the Catholic Church until the late 4th century when the Church finally settled the matter in Council, approved by the Pope. no one when out and started their own church over the canon and no one used a 66 book Bible until the 16th century. that’s a long time to be in error.
do you want to answer my question - who on earth can infallibly say what books are canonical and which are not? anybody? can you?
Its ok to continue to believe your myth. The eastern church in the first several centuries consistently rejected the apocrypha - bringing it closer to the 66 book version than your vaunted memory. But then why let truth get in the way of your wishful thinking.
So your church was not so infallible, was it at that time.
do you want to answer my question - who on earth can infallibly say what books are canonical and which are not? anybody? can you?
You've never asked me the question to begin with. Certainly not you olof anyway. Dare say that no man, other than Christ, is infallible. It was only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the many who were involved in evaluating which writings were canon, and which were ecclesiastical.
Gentlemen; you both have some of the truth, but not all.
The East does not regard the Apocalypse of John very well, but they preferred books like Hermas. http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm says that: In addition, the authorized Hebrew "translation" was at variance with the accepted Septuagint Greek versions, which had been prepared by 72 translators accepted Septuagint Greek version, which had been prepared by 72 translators working in Alexandria Egypt. This is significant, because the Apostles, who were the authors of the New Testament, as well as the early Church Fathers, frequently cite passages only found in the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament that have significant differences in meaning from the Hebrew. Moreover, they frequently cite passages from the "Apocryphal" books of the Old Testament.
The Septuagint has the Deuterocanonicals.
thanks Mark, I’m familiar with that as well. My main point is that while they (the eastern church) may have cited these other writings, predominantly they considered the OT to be minus the apocrypha as part of the CANON - source of doctrine, while these others were ecclesiastical - edifying, but not for doctrine.
“myths” are usually dispelled with facts, and so far, none have been forthcoming. “closer to the 66 book version” is not 66 books, this isn’t horeshoes or hand grenades! i invite you to examine the Bible used by the Orthodox and again you will not find 66 books in it.
i really wish you would answer my question or somebody else take a crack at it - does any authority exist today or ever existed that can infallibly state which books are canonical and which are not? simple question really. if yes, who is that authority and where did thweir authority come from?
Do you have any sources of this? I just spent a few minutes with Google and came up empty.
I will try to get into contact with Kolo and Kosta to ask them; I do not recall anything of the sort. The only reservations that I remember that the East had was the Apocalypse of John.
again, a lot of assertions, but no facts to back them up.
there must have been a great hue and cry when the “apocrypha” was added to the canon and i am sure the “true” Christians would have rejected such a move. please provide evidence of when the “apocrypha” was added to the canon by the eastern church and what controversy ensued when this happened.
why is it so hard to admit the obvious, the first 66 book Bible appeared on the world scene in the 16th century. even the original King James Bible did not have 66 books!
i do find it interesting that some are trying look to the “eastern church” for a 66 book Bible and would disagree with this “eastern church” on baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, once saved, always saved, etc. etc.
The earliest Councils that declared Canon were before 400 and included the Deuterocanonicals. The East was well represented and constituted the majority of bishops, actually. There did not seem to be reluctance to accept them. The site I referenced was quite explicit regarding the Eastern Fathers’ use of them.
i just saw this post.
so, you do admit the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, good we have common ground since this is Catholic Doctrine.
now, since we agree on the role of the Holy Spirit, please explain how the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to not understand any of the following for 16 centuries: the canon of Scripture, baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, salvation by faith alone and the Mass.
It was in an article about Jerome and his writings regarding canon vs ecclesiastical books. Athanasius for one opposed the inclusion of the apocrypha into the formal canon.
From my studies, it appears that the apocrypha were included with the OT writings, but not as canon but as ecclesiastical works and that it wasn't until Trent that the Catholic Church actually declared them to be part of the formal canon of scripture.
Quick google trying to retrace some of my reading encountered these items
Regarding the difference between canon and ecclesiastical works -
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon). (also at http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm)
The other -
The view which now commanded itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius was that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside of the canon proper. J.N.D. Kelly – Early Christian Doctrine(cited here: http://www.jiminger.com/apocrypha/index.html)
Revelation (Apocalypse) of John was one of the last books recognized by the whole church.
olofob - the Catholic church did not call the apocrypha part of the canon until Trent. Until that time they were considered were permitted to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine.
thus it was a 66 book canon even before trent - the apocrypha was just recommended reading.
there was a distinction made between canon and ecclesiastical writings Mark (New Catholic Encyl) where canon could speak to doctrine, while ecclesiastical was recognized as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.
So the key is definitions. Since it is apparent that the apocrypha writings were circulated, they were relegated to this lower level of authority as not authorative scripture.
Sorry, the canon was established early on. Only after trent were the ecclesiastical /apocryphal writings 'canonized'.
baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, salvation by faith alone and the Mass.
these things were understood - man has a way of mixing things up too, many of the items you noted are based on man - not bible.
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.