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.

If you are going to cite Luther, why not first of all READ Luther's Works rather than cut and paste what some other Catholic misquotes and misinterprets from Luther? In context, here is that quote and what Luther was talking about:

From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=we+concede+to+the+papists

“Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself.”” [LW 24:303].

But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult. He says,

“This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it." [LW 24:304].

Then, comes the citation in question:

“Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” [LW 24:304].

The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

“But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ ” (Hos. 1:10; 2:23).” [LW 24:304].

Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists:

“Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.” [LW 24:305].

“In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.”[LW 24:309].

From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

I accept the comments of the Early Church Fathers and theMagisterium over the history of the Church as authoritative.

WHAT A DODGE. I didn't ask you what you believed. Instead, you had just said it was up to ME to prove Paul did not look to Apocrypha as holy writ, (which I have made progress towards) when actually, it is still up to you to prove otherwise, for you were the one to bring the claim to the contrary here, in this discussion.

Appealing to Early Church "fathers", as a link I provided in my last comment towards you shows, doesn't help either your own latest rhetorical flourish (that Paul was somehow no longer a Jew?) for in response to my pointing out that Paul was a Pharisee (as he himself claimed), You said;

Saul was a Pharisee. St. Paul was a celibate Catholic priest and bishop.

which comes across as some sort of attempt to distract from my own pointing out that Paul didn't accept Apocrypha...

...to continue appeals to Early church notables seriously challenges if not refutes your overall positions, even as it rhetorically shifts away from what WAS being discussed. To get back to the present flow;
You said;

On the contrary, one must prove that St. Paul excluded it, which his successors clearly did not.

Oh, but many of the so-called successors did exclude the Apocrypa. Unless you'd care to more specifically name Paul's own succesors...

Who are they? Be specific. Name them. You claimed "they clearly did not". They must have names if they "clearly" did ANYTHING. Where are the quotes? From "Early Chruch Fathers". It is you whom blends those with "magesterium". Whom are you depending upon? How about checking the provided link? You'll see some Early Church Fathers in disagreement with you, or at the least, in agreement that Apocrypha isn't up to par with Hebrew Tanakh.

But your reply to me here, seems yet another case of the "fuzzy infallibles" as near as I can tell, naming and claiming "your belief" in the magesterium being always correct in it's results (that was not what was under discussion)...for there is abundant evidence (brought to and linked right to this FR thread) that the truth of the matter is much different than your own vague & specious assertions.

Very simply, again,
Paul came from the Pharisee tradition, was instructed by a top Pharisee. We were talking specifically about whether or not Paul would have considered Apocrypha as holy writ. The Pharisees most certainly did not. ADDRESS THAT.

Can that be proven otherwise, or there be some reply other than the type of short side-show, rhetorical song & tap dance/recital, you have sent my way in your last reply? I doubt it, or else we'd have all known of it, long before now. Save the Romish special pleadings. I'm a' gonna' hit 'em with a rock, each time I see one scurry across the pages here, if I can keep finding the time and energy, that is. Get used to the idea.

What now? Somebody else will chime in again with claims from "scripture-catholic", that apocrypha was quoted right and left in the NT? Oh, puh-leeze! I was able to refute several of those claims easily enough off-hand (before they reorganized their presentation, making it painfully slow to need to dredge out what they are talking about, instead of publishing the precise quotations), and I'm no bible scholar...and found yet another refutation (a NT use from OT which "scripture-catholic" cited as being only from their beloved "deuterocanonicals") quite by accident, when looking up something else in the OT.
For comparisons sake, if one was to find some passage quoted from the likes of the book of Jasper, used in the NT, that wouldn't qualify that book for inclusion in Christian canon.

What have you brought to show to the contrary (that Paul looked to Tanakh as completed scripture) that was not by vague allusion to some imprecisely named or cited persons much later than "early church father's" opinions, for ANY of what otherwise we, you and I, have also been discussing on this thread? Nothing, that's what!

It is possible to cite a few on one side of the ledger...and on the other, at the same time. THAT is the truth of the matter.

Vague reference to "magesterium" or calling Paul a capitalized letter "C" catholic "bishop", long after the fact, does not change in the slightest any of what has been laid out here, in plain sight.

This "Magesterium" you reference was still debating the OT canon right up until Trent, so there's not much help for you there, if we are looking for actual unanimous consent of long standing, nor is Trent any help if we are also looking for "early church fathers". The Apochrypa was discussed/debated at Trent as towards what it's proper status should be. (the canon most certainly was not "closed" in earleir centuries, as you otherwise also have claimed). Some preferred Jerome's admonition and warning towards those works. Others, for reasons I've delved into [slightly] on previous occasions, wanted for the Apocrypha the same status as Torah, and greater Torah (Tanakh) long enjoyed amongs the Jews. Which leaves you nothing much there (beyond possible johnny-come-lately opinion) indicating Paul considered Apocrypha on par with Tanakh (Jewish bible), other than possibly opinions such as you seem to express now, evidently being based on RC self-reverential attitudes of flawlessness (of the magesterium) which could lead to the assumption Paul must have thought just the way those at Trent did in majority, ending up voting in majority (but not unanimously) to include Apocrypha sans Jerome's warnings, re-naming the same "dueterocanonical" at that juncture.

The world didn't have that word "deuterocanonical" until it was made up, devised at Trent (or at least first introduced & adopted there) to get away from the [embarrassing] word Apocrypha. Yet at this late date, comes the baseless claim that Paul regarded Apocrypha as "scripture". Is it based on reliance upon claims of infallibility regarding the "teaching authority" of the Magesterium? Seems so...and I can say that without mind-reading, or attributing motive, for otherwise that attitude towards "the teaching authority of the Magesterium", has been often seen clearly stated, previously on these pages, more than a few times, by yourself. In fact, when the issues are pressed hard enough, what emerges but claims the RC church has never erred in it's "teaching authority"?

Paul was no less born a Jew and remained Hebrew, a "Jew" for reason Roman Catholics later claim Paul was or became "one of them", a RC (to the exclusion of other Christians, it may be added). Paul himself never used the word "catholic", much less capitalized the word into transforming from being an adjective, originally meaning universal, to being a pronoun. That today's Roman Catholics have shifted usage of that word yet further, to be in regards to chiefly themselves (if not only themselves) is yet more of the same. There is seeming no end to it...for it relies upon and continually returns back to the same sets of circular logic "navel gazing".

But Paul DID say that he himself was "A Hebrew of Hebrews". Once a Jew, born a Jew...always a Jew. Ask most any Jew, I'm sure they'd agree. Paul...one of the first Messianic Jews, maybe? And an early convert to Christ, by way of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.

A Jew today, converting to Christianity, only becomes less Jewish according to that famous club, "Jew who hate Jesus". Ok, I know there is no such actual club, I made that up for effect.

Paul never ceased being Jewish, even as being the one who wrote most of the book (NT) which Christians rely upon. Christ came to fulfill the law (that exact same law much taught to Paul by the Pharisee Gamaliel) not to do away with it.

John 4

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Take this additional peculiar argument or point raised; that Paul somehow became something other than Jewish after in a blindingly spectacular moment, Paul encountered the risen Christ, the King of the Jews Himself, to that same King of the Jews, Jesus Himself. I'm running out of patience with those sort of passive-agressive stunts, or methods of discussion.

“No, but all Catholic priests received their ordination in that manner.”

Alright, but this means you can’t use the laying on of hands as any conclusive evidence that Paul was a priest, since non-priests have received laying on of hands also.

“It is entirely possible.”

Yet not knowable.

“Every priest regularly performs the Anointing of the Sick. Further, not everyone receives the same gift from the laying on of the hands (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)”

Do any priests receive those gifts? Surely, some must prophecy or speak in tongues, if the ordinance your church is performing is the same as the one in Acts.

“There were 120 persons present at the first Pentecost, St. Paul was not among them. In order to participate in the Apostolic Succession directly to the Pentecost St. Paul received his ordination from one who had been present.”

Or, from someone who had received their ordination from someone present, or from someone else further down the line, right? That is how the succession is supposed to work, I think. So, if Ananias had the power to confer the Holy Spirit to Paul, then that is evidence enough that Ananias’ laying on of hands should have been sufficient for this purpose, correct? Which would make a second ordination redundant for that purpose, would it not?

“There was more than one Barnabas.”

Not mentioned in that passage, there isn’t. Unless you want to also argue that there were two Sauls?

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.