To Protestants Concerning Biblical Canon And The History Of The Bible?

As a Catholic.. I'm not your target audience, and are more then a little bit biased, but anyways....

Notice that no one is actually answering your question:

<<How can you rectify your claims with all this evidence against them?>>

They ignore it and don't even TRY to rectify them. They just side step and repeat their own points which they want to make on this general topic.

The closest you'll get is someone ignoring your points and asserting their OWN, counter points. Never admitting... "OK, perhaps it is not as black n white as I THOUGHT"

Because realize that ceeding any ground, admitting anything of the sort, gives the Catholic church legitimacy and therefore reduces their own authority or reasons for reject "The Church"

Anotherwards, I think they can't intellectually allow the Church to be right about anything.

_______________________________________________________

FYI...

Typically when you state your question at the very end... people don't answer it. If you list a bunch of reasoning and evidence at the beginning and THEN ask a question at the end... just realize that 9 out of 10 people will waste time picking at 1 or 2 of your points above and not actually get to your question.

TRUST ME, I've asked many questions like this on R&S -- most answerers simply end up arguing with sub-point or argument #3 and never get to addressing the actual question, let alone the implications of it.

__________________________________

::EDIT::

[Seeker]

There are a bunch of mistakes in that posting... some of those councils were regional, not ecumenical, so they are NOT part of the Church's teachings. -- Good try though.

Secondly, specific copies of the bible WERE banned because they were corrupted copies. Moors in Spain made several false copies and distributed them. There was also a group in France which published their own copy of the bible which claimed a 2nd Prophet was coming in addition to Christ.

The Church VERY MUCH opposed unofficial, heretical, and corrupted copies and the only way to keep them from circulating them was to burn them.

This was BEFORE the printing press existed and copies had to be hand written...meaning if not done correctly, it was very easy to create errors.

I agree, that is a lot of different questions. You might want to seperate those using some categories. 1) Old Testament Cannon 2) New Testament Cannon You also wanted to look at the differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. I would also recommend Jewish Bible too because the content of the Protestant Bible and Jewish Bible are the same but arranged differently (which may be interestng to you). Many rejected books are from the Gnotic movement. They are 2nd Century documents and can be found in the Gnostic Bible. Two other famous Jewish Books not in the Bible are "The Book of Enoch" and "The Book of Jubilees". The current books are there mainly because of popularity. The first five books where written by Moses. They are considered by most to be the most important books because they were the original Bible. Then came the prophets, those who continued the tradition. They have all been kept. In the Dead Sea Scrolls (found in 1947 and written before the time of Jesus) every book in the Old Testament was found except the book of Ester. (The New Testament was not written yet). So the Cannon for the Old Testament was not decided by Constantine at all. Constantine did play a big role in the development of the New Testament scriptures but really many people were involved not just the Roman Emperor. Also the cannon was not finalized with Constantine but much later. So what you are looking at is: 1) the date it was written (For the Old Testament - the cannon stopped around 400 BC. The New Testament stopped before the Second Century AD.) 2) Who wrote the book - Attention was given to famous historical figures Moses, David, Solomon, Paul, etc.) 3) Whether the book was part of another collection and if it was popular amung many congregations. 4) Some books "The Book of Jubilees" is another version of Genesis. Since only one version of Genesis was needed, the other was rejected. 5) Any books that were in doubt were discussed and some where rejected because of this. Also: there are some "doubtful" books that did eventually make it into the Bible.

The catholic (small "c", meaning universal) church (or the body of Christ) follows after the Master's voice (John 10:27-28). The church (or bride of Christ) is not limited to the Roman Catholic (big "C") church.

Denomination has no significance in the light of eternity in the kingdom of Heaven. Salvation is found only through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16-18), not through any Roman Catholic church, Greek Orthodox church nor through any Protestant church.

The Apocrypha books are not scripture, they were never considered to be scripture by the Jews and the early Christian church. The Apocrypha was added by the Roman Catholic church about 1500 AD at the council of Trent. The Apocrypha contains an interesting history of the Jews primarily in the inter-testamental period, but they are not widely accepted as the inerrant word of God. The Bible also has no mention of the Apocrypha books, while the Bible does refer to the other accepted canon of scripture.

The canon of scripture was completed and closed about 200 AD.

The primary purpose of scripture is to present the salvation plan of God through Jesus Christ. The Apocrypha does not support this main purpose of the Bible.

1) How can you rectify your claims with all this evidence against them?

OK - I am *not* one of those people who make the claims that you complain against, but there is, in fact, a few "nit picker" problems with some of your assertions.

The first Western (Latin) Bible known to include the book of Baruch is the 13th century Codex Gigas. The book of Baruch is not found in our oldest complete copy of the Vulgate (8th century Codex Amiatinus), nor is it found in the list of approved books made at the 397 council of Carthage (which ratified the 393 synod of Hippo), nor is it found in the 5th(?) century Decretum Gelasianum, which lists both approved Scriptures and objectionable Scriptures.

In other words, Baruch did not become a standard part of Western Bibles until the 13th century at **the earliest** (Eastern - Greek - Bibles are a different matter).

By the 15th century, copies of the Vulgate **commonly** included 1 & 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch and the epistle to the Laodiceans - and those Scriptures continued to be included until after Trent (until the end of the 16th century).

So - in fact, it is not entirely wrong to claim that the Roman Catholic Church added to the Bible - they certainly added Baruch, and for a long period other Scriptures.

However, there is a justification for including Baruch: it *was* approved at the 363 council of Laodicea (though no other Deuterocanonical books were approved at that council other than the Letter of Jeremiah, commonly included with Baruch or Jeremiah, nor was Revelation approved).

My point: the council of Trent had sound reason for including the book of Baruch in its list of official books. However, there is no doubt that for centuries the Vulgate did not include Baruch - it was added. There is also no doubt that, for at least a few centuries, other Scriptures were also included in the "official" Roman Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Another point: after Trent was approved by the Pope, he made a plea that 1 & 2 Esdras (and I believe The Prayer of Manasseh) continue to be included in Bibles so that they would not be lost to history, and this was in fact done. Original editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, as well as the Clementine Vulgate, include those books in an appendix. It is possibly significant that in the early 1600s a law was enacted in England requiring that those books be included in all English Bibles - but the DR had already been in print for years, and the Pope's plea was made decades before that law was enacted. Not until the Challoner Revision of 1750 did Roman Catholic English Bibles begin excluding that appendix.

Another point of contention: though the Douay-Rheims Bible was *probably* translated by 1582, in fact it was not published in its entirety until 1610 - one year prior to the King James Version. Therefore, it can be misleading to claim that it was "created" 11 years before the King James Version. Most books are dated to their first printing, not to the time that the author *might* have completed the work.

Finally: the supposed Biblical canon of Pope Damasus is not found in any record (probably you are basing this on the Decretum Gelasianum, which nearly all scholars now date to a period from the late 5th century to the early 6th century). The council of Laodicea approved an Old Testament Biblical canon very nearly identical to that of the Hebrew Tanakh (adding only Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah) - but that Biblical canon never seems to have been used in a published work. The first book known *as* "The Bible" - the Latin Vulgate - certainly did not include Baruch until (as I mentioned) the 13th century, and was probably not commonly included until the 14th century. (Interestingly, we often find the Letter of Jeremiah added to the book of Jeremiah in older copies of the Vulgate - but not Baruch).

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

@elyon......

The Catholic bible is the complete bible with all 73 books. The Protestant bible only has 66 because Martin Luther removed 7 of them.

The books Protestants will call the Apocrypha are actually called deuterocanonical books. The Catholic bible also include chapters in the books of Esther and Daniel not found in the Protestant Bibles. They will say Catholics added them but they have always been in the Bible.

They can be found in the Greek Septuagint bible used by Jesus and the Apostles and the Codex Sinaiticus bible, the oldest surviving bible. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4739369.stm

They are also found in the dead sea scrolls. Kind of hard to say Catholics add them when the dead sea scrolls are from the 2nd century B.C.

The only record of Hanukkah is in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees.

@Susanna....

Jesus Changed the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,

Mark 2:27 And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.

The Sabbath of the New Covenant is Sunday. Jesus resurrected on Sunday and the Biblical Church met on Sunday and Jesus was there(The First Day of the week).

Matthew 28:1

And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

John 20:19

Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.

Acts Of Apostles 20:7

And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:2

On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.

@No Chance without Jesus....

You contradict yourself. You say Catholics dont use the bible but the Mass is nearly 100% Bible based.....

@ Chris/David/Matthew....

Mat 13:19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.

<<Devout Catholic>>>

"The Church altered and added to The Bible"

It is usually atheists who come up with that one.

"The Church kept the Bible in Latin to make sure no one could read it"

"The Church prevented the spread of The Bible"

As a matter of historical fact, people could, and did, get burned alive for translating the Bible into English.

History is written by the powerful. Martin Luther nailed his claims to the church door and the rest is history.

A very good example of what happened then is displayed in the recent movie "Book Of Eli"

it was used to control. there is to much in the records to deny it.

In response to Chris (although he won't have an actual, non-copy/pasted answer handy for this):

"What does THE BIBLE ITSELF say?"

Where, Chris, in the BIBLE ITSELF does it say that the BIBLE ITSELF is the only authority on all things, faith-wise or otherwise?

Actual history sure can be an inconvenience.

First, the Apocryphal books (I disagree with you that the label is erroneous) do not agree with the whole of the 66 books of the canon of scripture. Second, the NT church did not place these books into the Bible (ie, the inspired text) because they agreed together that they were not of the Lord.

I will list just a "few" of the reasons why we are not ashamed but rather confident in what we believe:

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

easy because facts show that the catholic church did not permit the bible to be circulated among its followers

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should

not be permitted to have the books of the Old or

New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having

any translation of these books."

- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,

Scolar Press, London, England

copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,

ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

The Council of Tarragona of 1234,

in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old

and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses

them he must turn them over to the local bishop

within eight days, so that they may be burned..."

- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;

2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch,

Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

"Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition

archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books,

which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read

or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed

that even "the Bible" was once on the blacklist.

Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires

along with other ``heretical'' works...The Index

of Forbidden Books and all excommunications relating

to it were officially abolished in 1966. The Inquisition

itself was established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233...."

-Vatican archives reveal Bible was once banned book

By Jude Webber

ROME, Jan 22, 1998 (Reuters)

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be

permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament;

...we most strictly forbid their having any translation

of these books."

- ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,

Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters,

Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980

by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

--After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse

directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse

of Sacred Scripture on the part of the athari:

"prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti

laicis permittatur habere"

(Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).

ITEM #3 THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA - 1234 A.D.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon,

ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New

Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone

possesses them he must turn them over to the local

bishop within eight days after promulgation of

this decree, so that they may be burned...."

- D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

ITEM #6 THE BIBLE PROHIBITED BY

THE INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM

Pope Pius IV had a list of the forbidden books compiled

and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent

(Index Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559.

This is an excerpt :

"Whoever reads or has such a translation in his

possession... cannot be absolved from his sins

until he has turned in these Bibles...Books in the

vernacular dealing with the controversies between

Catholics and the heretics of our time are not to be

generally permitted, but are to be handled in the

same way as Bible translations..."

- Rule IV & Rule VI

Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten

Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1886), page 246f.

Source: The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand,

copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row,Inc.,

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480,

pages 474, 475.

1525: Six thousand copies of William Tyndale’s

English translation of the New Testament were

printed in Cologne, Germany, and smuggled into

England—and then burned by the English church.

"Tyndale wrote that the Church authorities

banned translation into the mother tongue

“to keep the world still in darkness,

to the intent they might sit through vain

superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy

their filthy lusts, their proud ambition,

and insatiable covetousness, and to exalt their

own honour... above God himself.” "

--William Tyndale’s New Testament.

Worms (Germany), 1526

British Library C.188.a.17

Copyright © The British Library Board

ONLINE GALLERY

LANDMARKS IN PRINTING