Skip to comments.Jousting with HuffPost's 'Bible scholar'
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 ...
Some expert! There are 73 books and not all are "ancient Jewish Scrolls".
I'm not sure the Huffington Post article said differently.
Maybe I wasn't reading the correct Huff Post article. Unless, I saw something different, the one I read (which was linked) actually seemed fairly right on about the Bible.
The Protestant Bible contains 66 books only, no more no less!
Bob Morey writes from that perspective.
I sense a Catholic/Protestant canonicity thread coming on...
Doesn't make him any less wrong!
in what year did the first 66 book Bible appear on earth? possibly the 16th century???
Actually, the Jews were using the 22 book canon (our 39 OT books) in the intertestamental period, and the NT canon was established in common use by around 200 AD, so universal use of the 66-book Bible dates to around the turn of the 3rd century AD.
Catholic + Orthodox + “Oriental” Orthodox all have 72, or sometimes more depending on how some of them are counted. I think the Ethiopian Churches have more than 72?
wrong, wrong, wrong. the Septuigant was the OT of the early Church and it contained more than your 39 books. there was no “common use” of the NT, many books claimed to be Scripture and certain books like Revelation were not accepted by everyone. The Church settled the question in the 4th century, and did not come up with 66 books.
please provide me the name of any group before the 16th century that used a 66 book Bible, i have never heard of any. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has never used a 66 book Bible. 1,500 years is a long time to have the wrong Scriptures, don’t you agree?
would the Holy Spirit use the Church to set the NT canon, but allow it to get the OT canon in error??
i think not.
btw - When the Church set the canon in the 4th century, it was not in reaction to any “Protestants”. it would be another 12 centuries before they came on the scene.
You obviously didn’t read the article at the link.
Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon - From his Catechetical Lectures, iv. 33-37, about A.D. 350.
33. Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. 1 And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. 2 Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: 3 for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters. 4
Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 363).
It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.
AD 400 - Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.
So your hard facts fall short, here is evidence in two places of the use of a smaller bible - based upon the Jewish canon from Jamiah in the 1st/early 2d century.
Cyril was a Catholic Bishop, who by himself, had no authority to set the canon.
The Council of Laodicea did not include Revelation in the NT canon and included the Book of Baruch in the OT canon. No 66 book Bible here, but i do give you credit for giving authority to a Council of Catholic Bishops!
Jerome’s Vulgate was not a 66 book Bible, but again i give you credit for trying to cite a Catholic as authoritative.
again, my facts stand unrefuted, there was not a 66 book Bible before the 16th century.
oh, but i did!
if it contains evidence of a pre-16th century 66 book Bible, please point it out to me.
i do have another question, what human being or institution has the authority to declare infallibly this is the correct canon of Scripture? anyone, or are we left to guess?
just read Cyril in total and he also did not include Revelation in the NT list of books.
again, no 66 books.
35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 4:35, p. 25.
uh oh, Cyril included Baruch in the canon, the same as the Council of Laodicea.
Speaking of silly assertions, here's one.
"Received as inspired"? By whom? Who has the authority to "receive" something as "inspired"? The Church, of course. But which church? Where? How?
"Before Roman Catholicism developed"? When did that happen, exactly, and more importantly, where's the proof? Not just handwaving ahistorical inventions like "Constantine did it" or "Leo did it," where's the proof that the faith of the Roman Christians was organically changed between AD 200 and AD 450? There isn't any.
And there was plenty of dissension over the content of the NT throughout the first four centuries, which is why two Catholic councils and a Papal decree between AD 380 and AD 410 were required to settle the matter. That's why the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement aren't in your 66 book Bible.