Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
I've participated on a number of threads that moved into a discussion of 'How do we know what is scripture, and what is not'. I post this for discussion. I'm a Baptist, so my views tend to agree with the Protestant author. I gave shorter change to the third view (Catholic) because much of the history was a repeat.
BMFL
A ping to those who have discussed these and similar issues with me before. If I’m pinging you improperly, please accept my apologies and let me know so I don’t make any such mistakes in the future. I’m not trying for a formal ping list - just trying to give a noggins up to folks who have written about these things before.
placemarker
I appreciate the ping.
I might not be able to give it any attention until Saturday, but I will.
The Emergence of the New Testament Canon by Daniel F. Lieuwen
Link: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx
Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament by M. James Sawyer
Link: http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament
Canon of the New Testament, by GEORGE J. REID, Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301195136/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Lots of links found here, including 2 of the 3 articles above: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html
Thanks for the ping!
A discussion on NT Canon probably shouldn’t omit the controversy involving Luther, and removing some NT books from the canon. This link:
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
has a long discussion - the Table of Contents is found below.
Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture by James Swan
August 2004
-Table of Contents-
Introduction: Playing The “Luther Card”
1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible: Was Martin Luther a sixteenth century Marcion? Did he publish a Bible missing books? A brief overview on the construction of Luther’s Bible.
2: Luther’s Concept of The Canon Of Scripture: How did Luther view the canon of Scripture? A synopsis of Luther’s prefaces. A look at Luther’s Christocentric hermeneutic.
3: Luther’s Liberty With The Canon And Trends In Church History: A look at the scholarly understanding of the canon in the sixteenth century. The opinions of Luther’s Catholic contemporaries Desederius Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan.
4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”: A look at the most frequently used Luther quote on his view of the canon, and Luther’s subsequent retraction.
5: Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of James: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s Preface to the Epistle of James.
6: Luther Cited And Preached From The Book Of James: The rarely documented positive usage of the Epistle of James by Luther.
7: Did Luther Want To Throw The Book Of James In The Stove?: Ever heard this one? Did Luther want to warm his house by using the Epistle of James in his stove?
8: Martin Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of Jude: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s preface to the Book of Jude.
9: Martin Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of Revelation: A brief look at Luther’s original preface to the Book of Revelation and its later revision.
10: Martin Luther’s Opinion On The Book Of Hebrews: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s preface to the Book of Hebrews.
Conclusion: Removing The “Luther-Card”
Appendix A: Patrick O’Hare’s Spurious “Facts” About Luther’s Canon: A look at one of the worst books on Luther ever written: The Facts About Luther, and its citations of Luther on the Old Testament.
Appendix B: Luther’s Sermon on James: An entire sermon by Luther from James 1:16-21 – “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle”
Endnotes: Bibliographic material and interaction with various anti-Luther writers and Catholic apologists.
Thanks. I would add that the Catholic Church views the canon issue for both Testaments settled since the African councils of Carthage and Hippo. The only thing that Trent did was to proclaim that solemnly in light of the controversies of the time.
Like most conciliar pronouncements, Trent repeated with greater clarity and in reference to the emerging Protestant doctrines, what the mind of the Church held to be true at all times since the issue was settled in practice, that is, as far as the Canons are concerned, since late 4c.
Thanks for the ping
Spot on, Alex!
From the Orthodox article:
The final acceptance of exactly this set of 27 books by everyone except the Nestorians (who accept five fewer) and the Ethiopians (who accept more) took some time particularly for Hebrews (because the Roman church was unsure of its authorship), Revelations (because it was easily misused by those with apocalyptic fantasies), and Jude (because it quoted from the apocryphal book of Enoch). While II Peter previously was the most disputed book,(53) by this point, it was less controversial to the Christian mainstream. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) and St. Gregory Nazianzus (329-389) accepted all 27 books except Revelation. On the other hand, in 405, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter which affirms a 26 book canon that excluded Hebrews.(54) Clearly, it took some time to achieve universal acceptance among the Orthodox for Hebrews in the West, and Revelation in the East.
The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the canon, and it accepted the 27 book canon, allowing only them to be read in church under the name of canonical writings. It “permitted, however, that the passions of martyrs, be read when their [martyrdoms’] anniversaries are celebrated.”(55)
Some accepted larger canons as well. St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-415) accepted all 27 books but also accepted the Wisdom books of Solomon and Ben Sirach. The late fourth century Codex Sinaiticus included Barnabas and the Shepherd “at the end but with no indication of secondary status.” The early fifth century Codex Alexandrinus made “no demarcation between I and II Clement” and the rest of the New Testament. St. Jerome (c. 342-420), the translator of the Vulgate and one of the greatest scholars of the early church, seemed to believe that Barnabas and the Shepherd were worthy of inclusion. However, he recognized that they were not in the accepted canon, and he did not believe that anyone had the authority to add them. He also noted that many still rejected Jude because of its quotation from Enoch.(56)
The canon of the Syriac-speaking churches in the third century included the Diatessaron and the fourteen Pauline epistles. In the early fifth century, the Peshitta became the official text of Syriac-speaking churches. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four gospels. It contained the 22 books of our New Testament other than II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Peshitta is traditionally held to be the work of Rabulla, bishop of Edessa from 412-435. However, it probably built on work of the previous century.) The Nestorian church still uses this 22 book canon. In 508, the Jacobite branch of the Syriac church came to accept the standard 27 book canon.(57)
The longest Biblical canon belongs to the Ethiopian church. Their Old Testament contains the Septuagintal books, Jubilees, the Ethiopic Enoch, IV Edras, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other books. Their New Testament includes the Shepherd and other books. Some manuscripts of the Ethiopian New Testament include the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian Canons which were written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340).(58)
I had deleted it to save space, but the full article is worth reading. Please remember that “the Church” doesn’t mean the Catholic Church to anyone except Catholics.
There has also been a dispute in the Catholic Church about what canonical means - are all ‘scriptures’ of equal value, or are some not useful for determining doctrine. I get in over my head on this discussion - I believe the Council of Trent left that as an open question.
What the Orthodox have to say on this is quite Catholic, and, I trust, vice versa, what the Catholics say is Orthodox. It is after all the same unified Church that worked out the Canon.
I am not aware of anything dogmatic regarding the relative importance of the New Testament books. The idea one often hears from the Protestants, that the Epistles are what teaches doctrine, and the Gospels are of lesser doctrinal value, sounds horrifyingly foreign to me. If anything, the words of Christ to us override any other statements that might sound more systematic and theological. Of course, we don’t contemplate any internal contradiction throughout both Old (complete) and New Canons, so it is a matter of one passage read in the light of another, rather than one passage negating another. Whatever difficulties of interpretation exist, they are more pronounced between the Old and the New Testament, rather than inside the New Testament, and comparing the two it is definitely the New Testament driving the proper understanding of the Old Testament and not the other way around.
“The Church” to me and to most Catholics is the set of Catholic and Orthodox Churches that retain the apostolic succession and have valid sacraments. Since our unity is imperfect, at times, when aspects that divide us are discussed, I would use “The Church” meaning narrowly the Catholic Church united to the bishop of Rome, but not in a discussion like this one. The Catholic ecclesiology is that each regional Church under a given bishop is in herself a complete Church, even though a larger body such as the Roman Catholic Church is also a Church, consisting of many Rites, Churches, and episcopacies. This allows for a certain flexibility of terminology.
I've only been a Baptist for 35+ years, but I've never heard that. I'd gladly jump down the throat of any Protestant who uttered such nonsense. If theology is the Study of God, then what could be more valuable than the Gospels?
That said, 400+ years after the Reformation, there are many Protestant 'churches' that God hates. I thought Martin Luther's introduction to his commentary on Romans, which I read for the first time about a month ago, a GREAT summary of the Gospel. That has made the recent news of a 'Lutheran" church ordaining homosexuals all the more painful - a bitter reminder of what can happen when the tares outnumber the wheat.
I would like to be able to visit them, and utter just one sentence in front of them:
It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. - Martin Luther
If we all agreed on the authenticity and history of scripture without agreeing on the correct interpretations of scripture means that the Bible divides just like the Koran and other religious books.
Once you throw out the interpretations of the the early Christians united completely on Eucharist,Baptism etc... you throw Christianity into a religion of many truths that disagree with each other and are divided(the devil's trap)
Modernist scripture scholarship lacks love and humility,dear brother.
Try spending more time in prayer than thinking of yourself as being some modernist prophet of free republic
Wake up!
“Once you throw out the interpretations of the the early Christians united completely on Eucharist,Baptism etc...”
If you read the New Testament OR the church fathers, it becomes obvious that early Christians were united on very little. It is also obvious that when we look back, we can easily read into what they said things they never intended (such as Purgatory & 1 Corinthians 3, per the NAB footnotes).
This post was intended to point out that while there is large agreement on what constituted MOST NT scriptures, there isn’t unanimity even today - and even less so if one considers books written prior to the life of Christ on earth.
“Try spending more time in prayer than thinking of yourself as being some modernist prophet of free republic”
I don’t think you know much about my prayer life...and I fail to see how reviewing the development of the NT canon is in any way trying to be a “modernist prophet”.
Care to explain?
The Third North African Council that canonized the Christian Bible was a local Council and therefore not binding on the whole Church. The Eastern Church referred to the Revelation as questionable until the end of the 8th century. The Orthodox Church to this day does not liturgically read from the Revelation, the only NT book that is thus excluded.
Obviously, not all dogmatic pronouncements are based on the exact number of canonical books. I submit that, without Hebrews or Revelation, nothing would change dogmatically as regards the concept of the Triune God, the dual nature of Christ or Mariology.
Both Churches make that very clear and reiterate that the Church teaching is as much based on what's in the Bible as in the unbroken life of the Church liturgically (Eucharistically), in other words lex orandi lex credendi.
Nonsense! They were 100 percent united on Eucharist being the actual body of Christ.
You make Christianity a religion of self interpretation like the Islam ,Judaism and Hinduism
Neither can you read exactly the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Sure, the three Hypostases are mentioned by name at various points in the scriptures and among the early Fathers, but the nature of the Triune God, as defined by the Church after the 4th century is not readily discernable from anything written in the NT.
That's why it took the Church until the 4th century to come up with a definition just what (not who—that was easy) was it the Church believed in.
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.