Where We Got the New Testament

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 21, 1999

Answers

Just to present a different point of view . . .

The Canon of Scripture

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 22, 1999.

Interesting that you cited Webster's work, David. I am right this minute (well, at least at lunch today) working on a rebuttal to that specific argument. By actually claiming that the "Palestinian" canon is the canon of the whole Church Webster has bitten off much more than he can chew. In my rebuttal I believe I will be able to demonstrate that he cannot cite even one individual who agrees with this canon prior to the "reformation" (my research is not complete, but that's how it's shaping up). That's a rather big problem given his assertion that this canon was actually accepted by the whole Church.

His biggest problem is his assumption that when a given Church Father calls certain books of the Old Testament "non-canonical" they mean by that "uninspired." This is a false assumption. Here is a preliminary piece I wrote to some friends in a discussion group on this topic.

--------------------------

I gleaned some interesting information from Fr. Deacon John Whiteford (Eastern Orthodox) on the OT deutero-canonicals. He told me that *standard* terminology in Eastern Orthodoxy (extending back into the patristic period) is to call the Hebrew OT books "canonical" and the deuteros "non-canonical" but that nevertheless the deuteros are *considered inspired Scripture*. I think this is exceedingly important. Here's a modern example, but Deacon John said that this distinction *and wording* is prevalent in Eastern Orthodox works:

"Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apocrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture."

Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville New York: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996, p 423) [this is a translation of the Russian Text "Zakon Bozhii" by the same author which was originally published in 1957, and is now very popular in Russia.

The Fathers spoke of the canonical books by which (according to Deacon John) they meant those considered canonical *by the Jews*. So in Origen's lengthy correspondence with Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.) he explains that he only uses the "canonical" books when disputing with the Jews because those are the only ones they consider to be Scripture; nevertheless, Origen says he knows perfectly well that there are other OT Scriptures in the Church. These are the "ecclesiastical" books which were indeed *read in the Church*. That means they were used in the liturgy; here's the connection to Mark B's theory. I'm sorry folks but you can't convince me that the early Church read books *in the liturgy* that it did not consider to be inspired Scripture. The burden of proof is clearly on those who would assert the opposite.

John Whiteford and I had an hour-long phone conversation on this. He mentioned several things of interest. First, having certain books of lesser authority for the establishment of doctrine is really not a big deal; we say the same for the New Testament vs. the Old Testament and within the NT for the Gospels vs. the Epistles. From the most ancient times the Gospels have been venerated above the other NT books; Deacon John pointed out that a great number of ancient mss. have just the four Gospels, demonstrating that the early Church segregated them just as we do now. Still, Trent settled this in favor of the deuteros being used in theological controversy.

He also mentioned that he had a lengthy conversation with Bill Webster explaining all of this; alas, Webster seems to have chosen to ignore all of it in his desire to attack the Church.

So, we have a very simple premise to defend: for the early Fathers and on through the history of the Church non-canonical/ecclesiastical does *NOT* mean uninspired or non-Scripture. For the Fathers, canonical and non-canonical/ecclesiastical mean basically what we mean today by primo-canonical and deutero-canonical. Big deal. This does not help Protestants at all. Here the only thing Trent settled definitively *against* the individual opinions of some Fathers and Doctors is whether these books should be used in theological controversy. But that is a very, very minor point compared to ruling against them because they held them to be uninspired. That, as Barry Farber would say, is like comparing lightening to the lightening bug.

I want to research this distinction between "canonical" and "non- canonical but ecclesiastical" further. So far it appears that several of the Fathers who are cited as proponents of the "shorter" OT canon cannot be said to actually reject the inspiration of the deuteros, but simply place them in this secondary category. This is not the "score" for the Protestants that they would want and it certainly explains St. Gregory's citation perfectly well.

Simply put, in order to carry the case Protestants would have to establish that for the Fathers "non-canonical" or "ecclesiastical" (as opposed to "apocryphal") means "uninspired" or "non-Scripture." That is their burden of proof. I have not done sufficient work on this, but my preliminary reading suggests that it is not possible for them to discharge this burden. On the other hand, it explains perfectly why you have Fathers such as Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Gregory, et al. calling the deuteros non-canonical or ecclesiastical and yet elsewhere citing them *as Scripture.*

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

David Bowerman,

HUH?

I posted a link to the history of the New Testament canon, and you reply with a link to an alleged history of the Old Testament canon.

HUH?

And you call it a "different point of view".

HUH?

See also Second Maccabees and the Rest of the Holy Bible.

So, David Bowerman, how exactly do you know that Jude belongs in the Bible and the Acts of Peter doesn't?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 22, 1999.

I did it! I did it! My church did it! My church did it! We're right! We're right! Why? Because my church did it! My "church" did it!

Now I ask WHERE IS Jehovah (or YHWH if you prefer) GOD in all of this? Left out?

The ultimate glory is THE GOD's. Period.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 22, 1999.

That the Catholic Church officially pronounced on which books belong in the Bible which don't is simply a historical fact, Jamey. Of course we believe that God the Holy Spirit was involved inextricably in that process. The only thing you offer in its place is "Well, you see, Jehovah told me personally that...." Well, sorry to tell you, we don't believe that your personal, private, subjective, fallible opinion about which books belong in the Bible has any authority whatsoever to anybody but you. I could claim that God dictated a new book of the Bible to me yesterday and my claim would be exactly on par with yours; both are equally void of authority.

Even as a Jehovah's Witness, every time you open your Bible you implicitly trust that ancient decision of the Catholic Church to provide you with those and only those books. Just because you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

You continue to dodge this question as if it doesn't matter. You answer as if it's sufficient to simply say "God did it" when we ask you how you know which books belong in the Bible. If that answer is sufficient for you then fine. But it's not a thinking person's answer, nor does it correspond to historical reality.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

To the RCC,

Perhaps you can prove that God exists also?

...or can you?

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), July 22, 1999.

I located Bill Webster and his site thanks to the earlier reference posted by David Palm. I had just read that article when I saw this thread regarding the canon. I thought it would be good to post the link to Webster's because it presents a different view of the canon and he makes some good points, not necessarily because I endorse it. I'm not finished researching such matters and probably won't be for some time.

I apologize to Lane if my post seemed offensive or confusing. I didn't realize that there were rules stating I must present a specific rebuttal to the article you posted. Perhaps if you would clarify the intention of your thread, then such confusion could be avoided in the future. Just posting an article is not very much to go on is it?

Side note: thanks to that link, I discovered an entire world of Roman Catholic vs Protestant apologetics that I never knew existed. It seems that a number of folks are very involved with the back and forth arguments over who is right in public debates and written exposition. Very interesting reading. I'm especially fascinated that so many of the Catholic apologists are those who converted to Catholicism from a Protestant background.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 23, 1999.

<< To the RCC, Perhaps you can prove that God exists also? ...or can you? >>

Well as a matter of fact, Michael, the First Vatican Council defined that the existence of God can be proven using reason alone. We could start a thread on that if you'd like. God's existence is about all you can get from reason alone; most of His other attributes and all knowledge about the Lord Jesus can only be known through Divine revelation.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

I apologize to Lane if my post seemed offensive or confusing. I didn't realize that there were rules stating I must present a specific rebuttal to the article you posted.

No apology is necessary. It wasn't offensive. It was indeed confusing. You are the one who implied it was a "specific rebuttal" by calling your link a "different point of view".

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 23, 1999.

David,

Please now answer this from the past:

And further, why do you believe 'your' authority?

-- Jamey March 26, 1999.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Obtaining of the New Testament - These may be obtained at Sears - Barnes & Noble - Amazon.com or by sending me a personal check in whatever amount you deem worthwile. All orders will be filled once I have returned from holidays in 2000AD. Or call my toll-free number @ 1-800-555-SCAM.+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 23, 1999.

David,

Further: "Even as a Jehovah's Witness, every time you open your Bible you implicitly trust that ancient decision of the Catholic Church to provide you with those and only those books. Just because you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't a fact. "

While I thank for the association and the comparisoms to the Witnesses, I still am not one. I do not live up to that standard and am very far from it.

As to the implicity of trust to 'your' canon, I do not. Nethier do they. If they did then the other books of the Bible which you added would still be there. Also, if they had "impliced" trust in your "CC" then they should also believe all the "traditions." They do not.

I do believe in a wonderful thing that the Jehovah's Witnesses have used "your" Bible without all the additives and put together a very well thought through sequence of events which "fits" all together.

A little background, I - personnaly - became involved with the Witnesses for the wrong reasons, but so far I have fond no reason to believe "your" version versus "theirs", simply because yours has too many additives and contraditions, imho.

I've been working - at work - a lot of late and I will try to post more on this later in a new thread on Jorge's "purgatory." Which I also believe to be rather confusing.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 24, 1999.

Jamey - Hang in my man for we are all trying to find the light at the end of the tunnel+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 24, 1999.

Hey Jean,

I'm not trying to find the light at the "end" of the tunnel. I see the light, just trying to get out of the tunnel! (SMILE)

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 24, 1999.

Jamey,

I'm sorry; I thought from other threads that you were a Jehovah's Witness. I have hesitated bringing criticism against specific JW positions or translations in this forum; just as well, I suppose.

I am working on an answer to your question above. I will post it in a separate thread. It will take me a few days.

There is no system of doctrine more consistent or more Biblical than Catholicism. But the one thing you simply assume, without proving it or even trying to demonstrate it, is that the collection of books you call the Bible is the only authority on these matters. Given that that is an erroneous, unbiblical, and unhistorical position it leads you astray from the very start.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

David - as the inconsistencies of Catholism of course there would much do to the fact of interpretation by men. I often read other " religious wrtings " and find them to be based on the same theme of love one another. We as Christian are fortunate I feel for we have been a given a great teacher in Christ whose Father's House has many mansions. WE all of the human family are learning.

Jamey - As to the question does God exist my anwer is you are here.

+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 24, 1999.

Jean,

I have no doubt and never have at all that God exist. Even if I wasn't here now. I grew up seeing His creations.

David,

As to me being "led astray", please answer the other post's as well.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 26, 1999.

I am very disappointed this Monday morning by not having received a single order for the New Testament - see above - having offered a toll free 800 number no less. This is awful. Line still open for those interested.+Peace+ - Have a great week.

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 26, 1999.

As to the implicity of trust to 'your' canon, I do not. Nethier do they. If they did then the other books of the Bible which you added would still be there. Also, if they had "impliced" trust in your "CC" then they should also believe all the "traditions." They do not.

Exactly. Precisely. They who accept the New Testament canon as established by the Catholic Church are inconsistent in not accepting the Church's authority in other matters. Thank you very much for pointing this out.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 28, 1999.

Then follow 'your' traditions of easter eggs, wisemen and Jesus being born in the middle of winter. Follow your traditions of the "cross", but pick out your particular one - there's many variations. Make sure you have the correct one.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 28, 1999.

A question of Faith to David P. with implication to Lane,

This must be something really stressed in CC teaching now, because you' seem to love to ask it and accuse other of making circular arguments - which is also what your are doing. What are you doing, preparing another paper/book? Do you have access to the "chair"? Will this book be infallible?

As I HAVE SAID, I do believe the "Church" to have canonized the "Bible." Because that was the method The God chose to accomplish His Purpose. Much as how, for some reason, GOD chose the Israelites as His people to write the OT. However, I do not believe what you have now is the "Church" Christ spoke of. Nor do I believe many of your "traditions." And, the further I seem to go I doubt you church' ever was to be Christ'.

Please remember not all people accept all of your' OT books.

Jesus told Peter (Mat 16:17), "it was not men who revealed to you, but My Father in heaven." Now, did The God come down directly and say "Peter, this is how it is....."? Of course not. Yet you deny The God can't in some fashion, whatever that may be, "tell" us today what we should do. You say believe "this group of men." Which I don't want to disappoint you, many have been "sick" among many other things. That is also a historical "fact."

As I've said, you deny my Faith and say I must believe your' men because of their say-so. I do not believe this. I give the Glory to The God - as it should be. This glory does not belong to your church. It is still The God's, His and His alone. Faith in HIM is given by Him. It is not given by your church.

Your can talk till your blue in the face of your men' but if a person does not have GOD given Faith in that, then......? And, your "church" does have a history - NOT ALL OF IT IS GOOD.

Your church' was chosen to "canonize" the NT which is "a historical fact" - and I have said so in the past. Does that mean you are still right with all the extra's Catholics have added? I do not believe so. The Hebrews are wrong according to "us" for not accepting Christ. That same process or line of events that misled the Jews and their Faith has become infused in many beliefs that are practiced today. Many of the Catholics still believe the "wise men" were some sort of kings - they were not.

I have not "dodged" this in any manner. You just can't accept my explanation because I choose not to follow your' men.

Compare: Deut 4:2, Psalms 119:160

The Bible itself tells me' it's inspired, even BEFORE your "church" was involved. But, unlike the Jewish people I also accept yours' because it is written and fulfills the Old Covenant prophecies to the best that I understand them. Not, because you churches say-so or "authority".

I accept the Bible table of contents" as the Protestants do based on it all fits, with no contradictions, as I believe your' extra OT books have along with your traditions.

I believe the Bible because over the many centuries it has proven correct, even when men and their science have suggested otherwise. I believe the Bible because many things in Nature has taught me things that the Bible says Nature can. Etc, etc, etc.

That is based on my Faith in God to lead me down the correct path - not your 'men' to tell me do so.

You accuse me of "not thinking" which implies I do not think for my self, yet you say believe all your long-line pf papal infallibility, thereby not thinking for your own self. YOU MUST follow their word' and I believe their word contradicts many in the Bible you lay claim too. And, you can't accept my "explanation." That's fine. So be it. But, please leave off the accusations.

Now, choose your "history" and it's "authority" VERY carefully. Not all is good, especially when pertaining to the "catholic church."

Since you have this thing' about your' church and the Bible, what is that you want? Do you need for all us non-Catholics to lay down and bow to your knowledge, your church, or pope and give glory? Because of your say-so? Your "authority?"

If so, am I now required to bow down to the Jewish people?

As far as the Bible being "canonized" by the "catholics", lest we forget that it was the Jews who directly wrote the ENTIRE Old Testament. It is through them Catholics base theirs. And it's their prophets who wrote directly under inspiration from Jehovah - not through what is claimed to be His Sons Church. And, theirs do not include some of yours. Why? There is no word "Catholic Church" in the Bible. There is only the term "catholic" or universal, in which has been usurped into a self assumed Title. Jesus didn't say "upon this...I'll build my "church." He said "upon.. I'll build my CONGREGATION." "you" have replaced with the word "church" to give some sort of legitamacy to yourself. Look up "church" see where it comes from.

Another historical "reality", the ones you say were chosen with "Holy Spirit" by your bishops and "laying on of hands" of the past, many have been corrupt men, yet still led' your church till they died and you claim they had no influence doctrine'. I find that very hard to believe, simply because of history. Now, either the Holy Spirit is:

a) misleading a lot people b) doing a very bad job c) the author of confusion d) ??

The God gets the ULTIMATE GLORY. Period.

That's all I need.

Again, follow your men if you need to, but don't let that get in the way of the Truth.

You keep pressing the answer of "Faith" and say that's not a valid answer, Now please answer, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR "authority"?

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 28, 1999.

St. Bernardette of Lourdes said that "for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, and for those who will not, none is possible."

Is it possible that you, Jamey, refute any argument supporting the authority of the Catholic church put before you simply becuase you will never accept it? If so, your purpose here is not to understand, but to undermine. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence, the effect is acheived. All over the internet, I have seen arguments and quarrells such as this one. I have watched the tones of posts go from friendly to cynical to passionate in never ending and always widening schism. The scripture states that God does not introduce confusion into the world. However, it seems that this thread is merely strengthening the division of the 10,000 and some odd denominations in the U.S. alone and possibly drawing the minds of faithful Catholics into a realm of questions that none of us will ever be able to answer fully for them. Thus the said confusion ensues--a confusion which is not of God.

None of us will ever be able to change the doctrine of the Bible in the Church. That is given. My prayer every day is that the confusion will stop.

Yours in Christ, Paul

-- Paul T. O'Brien (paulobrien@i.am), July 29, 1999.

We should not forget at any time our relgious heritage is Jewish. Chris was a fully lawful Jew who brought to the attention of the masses an expansion of those laws and the flaws of man made laws of which we still suffer.

My mind goes to the Gospel Thomas which is a fine read for he was there and must have been so humbled at placing his hand of his hands in the wounds.

The choice of the four gospels to me have always alluded me. Was it a political choice I have often wondered? Anyone know why please?+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 29, 1999.

RE: NEW TESTAMENT 1-800 NUMBER. Due to very little responce in fact none at all the company has decided to shut down this service effective midnight July 31st. 1-800-SCAM does not thank you in any manner for the lack of support. Signed SCREWTAPE Assistant Beancounter

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 29, 1999.

Paul,

"Is it possible that you, Jamey, refute any argument supporting the authority of the Catholic church "

Then answer the question of why YOU believe this "auithority" versus another?

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 30, 1999.

Jamey,

Please see my new thread entitled:

"Why I Believe the Authority of the Catholic Church"

I will be winding down my participation in this forum but I hope that piece will be helpful.

God bless.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 30, 1999.