Where We Got The Bible

http://www.tanbooks.com ^ | HENRY GREY GRAHAM

[NKP_Vet]

This little book about the Bible grew out of lectures which the writer delivered on the subject to mixed audiences. The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic press 1908-9, and are now with slight alterations reprinted. Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretense either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible. It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorized Version. Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection. Probably the motive of the present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th of March, 1911:

[lonestar]

“The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine insnspiration.”

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible”

---

First of all, the Roman church didn’t even exist as it does today in the 3rd century.

“Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.’ — Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

Taken from:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BeggarAll-Exchange-DM.html

Second of all, there was no church-wide decision that determined the canon in the 3rd century, unless you are trying to refer to Jerome (but this would be later) who put those books you mention out of the canon. The only ecumenical council, Trullo, at the time actually endorsed quite a few contradictory lists, including lists with even more books than the Catholic church today recognizes. Other councils were entirely regional, and therefore not binding, and thus, the view of Jerome prevailed in the west for quite a long time.

[Salvation]

Even Luther gives Catholics credit!

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

Where We Got The Bible
Some Biblical Truths
The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Salvation]

Luther took out books because they didn’t go along with the words that he added to the Bible. Check it out!

[NKP_Vet]

“The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible”

Pardon me. 4th Century. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
There is hope for you afterall.

[Mr Rogers]

“First, why are you quoting Cajetan?”

To point out that prior to Trent, there was an ongoing dispute concerning which books were in the canon, and how they were to be used.

“Second, post for us the source where you got this Cajetan quote from. Why does it seem to appear only on anti-Catholic websites - especially on one banned here at FR?”

Take your insinuations and stuff them.

http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html

Also see:

http://catholiclegate.blogspot.com/2009/07/cardinal-cajetan-and-8-important-points.html

Where did it come from?

“Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament which was dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jerome’s teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon.”

http://www.the-highway.com/scripture1_Webster.html

It is true that Catholic sites generally fail to mention the dispute about the status of the Apocrypha, both before and after Trent.

“You’re actually claiming the Catholic Church would use the term “Apocrypha” in exactly the same way you do in regard to books we call Deuterocanonicals?”

You DO realize “Deuterocanonical” was a word invented AFTER Trent, because Trent left out a few passages that had been accepted as part of the Apocrypha for 1000 years prior. When they realized they had screwed up their list, they had to invent a new word to describe the part of the Apocrypha they HAD remembered to list.

And even Trent did not answer the question about using the Apocrypha, now shrunk down a little to the “Deuterocanonical” (word invented in 1566), books for doctrine:

“The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” Hubert Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57

[NKP_Vet]

The New Testament was not decided upon until the late 4th century, at the Council of Rome, in the year 382. This collection of writings from the first century Christians was determined by this Council to be divinely inspired by God, the real author. Many other writings were considered, but were thrown out by the Catholic Church as not being the authentic Word of God. The interesting fact here is that this means for almost 400 years the Christians of those days had no Bible to refer to. Therefore, the Church that Jesus Himself had set up had to primarily transmit His Word orally (some rare individual manuscripts did exist, but were mainly limited to Churches, and not considered divinely inspired as sacred scripture until 382 AD), which is the beginning of the doctrine of Tradition.

[xone]

I’m stealing that, around here it will get a lot of use.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“The New Testament was not decided upon until the late 4th century, at the Council of Rome, in the year 382. This collection of writings from the first century Christians was determined by this Council to be divinely inspired by God, the real author.”

---

What you are actually referring to is the alleged Decree of Gelasius, often ascribed to earlier popes as well, and to the council of Rome. It is a fake:

“The Decree of Gelasius (Decretum Gelasianum), which contains a list of canonical books, was so called because it was formerly ascribed to Pope Gelasius (in office from 492 to 496). Various recensions of the same decree were also ascribed to the earlier Pope Demasus (366-384) and the later Hormisdas (514-523), or to councils over which they presided. But for the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz’s conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html

[xone]

Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)

Yeah, but what does he know?

[xone]

Protestantism is a heresy. There, I said it,

That settles it then.

[vladimir998]

“But notice you provide no proof for this, just an assertion.”

So your admitting I did what Mr. Rogers did? Yep, he made a baseless assertion. See how that works? Here’s the difference: If you look in Catholic Bibles for the millennium before Trent what do you find? The Deuterocanonicals.

Explain to me why the Codex Amiatinus - an 8th century Anglo-Saxon Bible in Latin which was made as a gift for the pope - says Tobias, Judith and the Maccabees are part of the canon. Why is Baruch in the Theodulf Bibles?

And as usual, the rest of your post tells us nothing actually having to do with the issue - except for this:

“He’s a cardinal and is therefore more credible than some random Papist trying to rewrite history.”

False. He was out of step with Church practice, tradition and teaching on this issue so he is not a credible on this issue. Also, Cajetan had some strange views in general - including bigamy.

“There was no church decision of which he was rebelling against,”

You might want to look up Council of Florence, Session 11—4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts].

“but was merely sharing the historical and correct view of his day,”

Clearly not - since the view of Florence was still very much in force a hundred years later on the canon.

“a reality even shared in Latin translations of the Bible put forward by the Roman church.”

Except for the ones I mentioned in another post and many, many more.

[Errant]

Chief curators appearing in a video tells us nothing about the veracity of the main line of thought put forward in the video.

Your complete disregard for the positions these men hold along with your shameful maligning of Protestants in general, tells me all I care to know about what you think.

[redleghunter]

The Hebrews have over 4,000 years of history. Does that make them right?

[vladimir998]

“Take your insinuations and stuff them.”

If you had simply posted the source, I wouldn’t have had to ask for it. Anti-Catholics lie. I’ve caught them at it before. If you don’t like that, too bad.

“You DO realize “Deuterocanonical” was a word invented AFTER Trent,”

Trent ended in 1565. Some people claim the word deuterocanonical was first used in 1566. The point is why would Trent use the word Apocrypha if it didn’t believe those books were Apocrypha?

“...because Trent left out a few passages that had been accepted as part of the Apocrypha for 1000 years prior. When they realized they had screwed up their list, they had to invent a new word to describe the part of the Apocrypha they HAD remembered to list.”

Oh, please post a source for that claim - a reputable source.

“And even Trent did not answer the question about using the Apocrypha, now shrunk down a little to the “Deuterocanonical” (word invented in 1566), books for doctrine:”

That’s certainly not a complete view of Jedin’s info on the subject. Why aren’t you posting for people where you got this? Have you got a copy of the book or did you merely cut and paste it from here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/carries-semi-authoritative-catholic.html

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[redleghunter]

Who decided Torah was Holy Scriptures? Moses?

[vladimir998]

“Your complete disregard for the positions these men hold along with your shameful maligning of Protestants in general, tells me all I care to know about what you think.”

Oh, please wake up. You seem to have no clue. Waite is a twit. No real scholar takes him seriously. Look at the books he has published. He is nothing more than a KJV Only crank. Look at this sad, old man and his pitiful audience/congregation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MlWXZzgmyw I think it is hilarious when the old lady insists she has a KJV when he doubts it!

[vladimir998]

“The Hebrews have over 4,000 years of history. Does that make them right?”

Not after the first 2,000.

[daniel1212]

I don’t know about everyone else, but God himself gave me the bible.

Yes, and if instrumentality required or made one assuredly infallible or recognizing it did, then the church should have submitted to those sat in the seat of Moses.