Who has the truth (part 2)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
This is a continuation of who has the Truth.Continue your discussion here.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004
Faith says:"I accept the Bible as given to me by God....."
When did God give you the Bible. How did he inform you which books were inspired and which weren't?
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 28, 2004.
Who Has The Truth (part 1).......Click Here for the original thread.
(Or copy-n-paste the URL into your browser's 'address/location'.)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00COOw
.................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.
James--I believe that we have God's Word., just He wanted for us to have...minus of course those second class books that were not written by His prophets of apostles. I believe we would have this Bible even without a council....the Jews did....they recognized the inspired Word of God from His prophets without a council for centuries....So did the early Christian believers..........
-- ("faith01@myway.com'), September 28, 2004.
Hi Faith,To answer your question on the other thread, the Pastor of the Word of Faith church that I used to attend, the Pastor of a Calvary Chapel, the Pastor of a Wesleyan Church, and another friend of mine, who is also a Wesleyan Pastor, all told me Carthage was the council that declared the N.T. testament canon. But the biggest "fish" I talked to about it was Hank Hanengraf, President of CRI, and the "Bible Answer Man." He's a guy I really respect. Extraordinary biblical knowledge the man has. I called his program when he had a history expert on (Paul Meyer, who is president of the Missouri Synod Lutheran) and they both told me the same thing. N.T. was canonized at Carthage and the deuteros at Trent.
It must be generally taught at different Protestant seminaries, and they just don't check for themselves. All of these fellows, I am sure, went to different seminaries, and yet they all told me the same thing. Keep in mind, these people aren't lying, they are just simply repeating what they've been taught.
Now, this fellow, Bruce Metzger, is a well-known, well-respected Protestant theologian, and he is the one from whom I found the Carthage text. I am sure you can get it at ccel.org as well, though I have never looked for it there.
Chow for now,
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
Faith says:"they recognized the inspired Word of God from His prophets without a council for centuries....
So did the early Christian believers.......... "
How did they recognize what was the word of God and what was not? From my reading of history there seemed to be some dispute as to what books should be consider inspired. Who were the early christian believers who knew which books were inspired?
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 28, 2004.
Jamesi have made the point before that Faith appears to think the books were handed down from the Cross; or, at least, that is the only basis upon which her theology can work.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 29, 2004.
james...In the same way that the Jews knew there Hebrew Scriptures long before any council in A.D 95.....Christians knew theirs. When? The apostles themselves recognized their own growing body of literature as Scripture. Early Christians from the time of the apostles knew their New Tesament Scriptures as well. These letters and books were being written and ciculated simultaneously.
Yes there differences of opinion as to some certain books that the majority rejected anyway. Yes--it took time for all letters and books to circulate to everyone. But in time., without a council--the books were understood, without any council.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Faith,
Yes there differences of opinion as to some certain books that the majority rejected anyway. Yes--it took time for all letters and books to circulate to everyone. But in time., without a council--the books were understood, without any council.
This may seem true from our perspective almost 2000 years later, but for Christians in the early church, knowing which books were inspired wasn't so simple. How ever we make light of it, there were disputed books and a lot of the population couldn't read anyway. There was discussion among the bishops of the church over time to determine divine inspiration. What standard should be used, and who actually wrote the books we now call the New Testament were big questions of the day. The people relied heavily on their church leadership (the bishops) so they wouldn't be lead astray. Imagine living in a time when you don't even know what constitutes Scripture. Hard to imagine.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 29, 2004.
Well that is where I trust in God's providence once again. The Jews managed to understand the difference between inspired books and those that were not.It seems that the Christians did also.
When the council at Hippo sat down to ratify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 393--they neither added or subtracted any books. They simply approved the 27 books already recognized by the early believers.
See the first list of these 27 books in an easter letter written by Athanasius in A.D. 367.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Here's a link to what that Easter letter said.apocryphal not canonical
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Here's an even better one:Inasmuch as some have taken in hand to draw up for themselves an arrangement of the so-called apocryphal books and to intersperse them with the divinely inspired scripture...it has seemed good to me...to set forth in order the books which are included in the canon and have been delivered to us with accreditation that they are divine.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
Very interesting Faith. I'm sure there are many more writings from various individual fathers-in-the-faith showing their struggle over the determination of "what was cannon." Someone earlier mentioned what an arduous task it was. It literally took YEARS of argument debate! If I'm not mistaken, by the time of Carthage, just a few years later than Hippo, Constantine was actually the one who put monumental pressure on the bishops in that regional council to affirm once for all the "Canon." I have posted Hippo elsewhere, probably on this thread, so I won't post it again.You will note at the end of Hippo, there is a phrase "that the Church over the sea be consulted" for the approval of the list compiled by these Bishops at Hippo.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 29, 2004.
Golly, I meant the Bishops of Carthage not the Bishops at Hippo!The council at "Carthage" not Hippo is where the N.T. and deuteros were ALL deemed canonical by a regional council, and then sent overseas for ratification, or approval.
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 29, 2004.
We are on to a different point here Gail. It has already been established that the council at Carthage was local and had no binding power.No council ever determined the canon. It was understood by early believers due to the providence of God.
The books of the Bible are not God's word because Athanasius said so; they are in the Bible because almost everyone in the church recognized their wisdom as coming from God. Athanasius was only ratifying the decision of many devout Christians who saw the power of certain books to draw people to Christ and change their lives and thought.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.
From the previous link you gave us I found, faith this:From Origen (250 AD) as quoted from Eusebius on the Old TestamentAnd outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel."(c) He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
and The New Testament:There is I know a Gospel which is called "according to Thomas," and one "according to Matthias," and there are many others which we read, lest we should seem to be unacquainted with any point for the sake of those who think they possess some valuable knowledge if they are acquainted with them. But in all these we approve nothing else but that which the Church approves, that is, four Gospels only as proper to be received. Taken from http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html
So Thomas and The Maccabees used to be read too, according to Origen.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
Also faith, the Syrian Church (where the disciples where first called Christians), the oldest Church (after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 135) and became a pagan city as Aelia capitolina did not include certain books from the New Testament.Peshitta Version. (about A.D. 400) The old Syriac version did not include the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation of John. These were not generally received as Scripture in the Syrian churches until the ninth century.
This shows there was no unanimity among churches about the books. Thus, there was never an agreed canon.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/others.html
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.
These are good points Elpidio.Faith,
Well that is where I trust in God's providence once again. The Jews managed to understand the difference between inspired books and those that were not.
It seems that the Christians did also.
When the council at Hippo sat down to ratify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 393--they neither added or subtracted any books. They simply approved the 27 books already recognized by the early believers.
I am confused. The books the Christians recognized at Hippo and Carthage were the deuterocanonicals, not the Hebrew canon. How could both be correct when they contradict each other? You are using the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as proof that Christians "knew" divine inspiration when they saw it because they ratified New Testament books we use today. But when the same Councils ratify the deuterocaninicals, you say those aren't inspired. Why aren't the same councils that recognized divine inspiration in the New Testament good enough to recognize divine inspiration in the Old Testament deuterocanonicals?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 29, 2004.
Hi Faith,Here's the text from Carthage again, and I'm just posting it again to clear up my huge blunder earlier. Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Bruce Metzger.
Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. CONCERNING THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS CANON, THE CHURCH ACROSS THE SEA SHALL BE CONSULTED. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.
****
This is where the rubber began to meet the road finally. As Elpidio and others have pointed out, there was a lot of confusion as to what was to be used in the Christian canon. By the time of Carthage, those details had been hammered out by the Catholic Bishops and then this "proposed" canon was sent to the "Church over the sea" for approval.
At any rate, the 3rd Council of Carthage played a huge part in the history of the Catholic Bible and its origen.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 29, 2004.
The way I see it Gail...The 22 New Testament books were known early. They are defined by their inspiration. God works through prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New.
Athanasius was trying to prevent those who were trying to insist on those uninspired deuterocanonical books as well as gnostic books.
He makes it clear that the apocrypha were not part of the canon. So apparently--there was an understood canon before any council ever ratified those books.
The apocryphal books simply do not qualify. They were written after the Hebrew Scriptures were closed--and before the apostle's New Testament literature., and they were not written by prophets or apostles. The content of these works are legendary, fanciful and innacurate in historical claims. Therefore they were always rejected by the majority.
Trent was the fisrt official council to ratify those books. But clearly early Christians recognized the 22 New Testament books as canon--and not the deuterocanonicals.
For further confirmation--turn to the apostles themselves. You will not find that they have appealed to any of them for teaching. They never quote from those books. I think that that speaks volumes.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 30, 2004.
The formation of the canon (which canon?) is not as simple and cut/dry and most Protestants think. Most Protestants think it sort of fell out of the sky as a leather bound black book with gold lettering on the front, but there was debate within the church as to which books were actually Apostolic. Even 2 Peter was rejected by many as appearing non-Apostolic. I tend to agree, but I won't say 2 Peter ought to be excluded from the collection necessarily.(Compare the words from heaven in the account of the transfiguration in 2 Peter with the words of God spoken from heaven in the Gospels. They differ... and if the writer of 2 Peter was actually there, it would agree with the Gospel of Luke - AT LEAST. It doesn't.)
So, the canon of scripture did not fall out of heaven. The churches had to decide what was acceptable and not acceptable based on TRADITION and the Spirit. So much for the "scripture alone" argument. The Bible itself is based on tradition.
What is our attitude toward the church of that age which put together the Canon? What did that Church believe? Does your church agree with their teachings?
It's interesting that many base their entire faith on the Scriptures, yet hate the ancient church and church fathers who officially collected the books and canonized it. (This was before Roman Church departed from the other Patriarchates of the Universal Church, so I'm not advocating Romanism in any way here.)
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.
Maxan unusually candid treatise from a protestant. would that others open their eyes to some practical truths.
maybe you might explain why you do NOT advocate what you refer to as "Romanism".
you might also explain what "Romanism" is.
thank you.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
I fail to msee any problem with 2 Peter and the gospels.Could you be more specific Max?
Also--you have very little faith if you believe that the Scriptures didn't come right out of heaven--literally.
The very same divine providence that oversaw the writing of His Holy Word--saw to its coming together. Men were just God's vehicle--but I have no doubt that we have His Word exactly as He wanted us to have-- in spite of the Catholic Church--not because of it. The Jews had the Old Testament canonized long before A.D 95 in Jamnia--and the New Testament Scriptures were recognized by the apostles themselves....
We can trust divine intervention implicitly!
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 07, 2004.
That's right, men were just God's vehicles. The Jewish men who wrote the Old Testament texts and the early Catholic leaders who wrote the New Testament texts were instruments used by God. And the Catholic bishops gathered in council at the end of the 4th century to define the Canon of Scripture once and for all time were likewise instruments used by God, without whom no person on earth would have any way of knowing with certainty what is Scripture and what is not. It's curious then that Protestants feel justified in throwing out some of the books of Sacred Scripture which God wrote and placed into the Canon through these same human instruments. And yet they accept the remaining texts selected by these same men through the same means, as infallible choices. How could these instruments of God be in error 10% of the time, and yet be infallible the rest of the time? Did God define the Canon of Scripture through these men or not? Of course, if Luther had his way, the compilers of the Canon would have been wrong 10 times, not just 7, since he had fully intended to throw out 3 New Testament books along with the 7 Old Testament books he trashed. Had he suceeded, Protestants would be using a Bible with 10 books missing, yet still accepting the rest as infallibly chosen, while offering us all the reasons why Revelation, James and Jude are not inspired.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 07, 2004.
cross purposes = accidental concorde
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
Well that makes no sense Paul--Since the Jewish people knew their Scriptures and never needed any council to tell them what they were. 400 years after the fact--The fact, the council at Jamnia sat down and ratified what the Jewish people already knew centuries earlier. And they did this because some certain people were trying to impose the uninspired apocrphal books into their sacred Scriptures.
The apostles themselves closed our canon--and no council removed or added any books. It was already understood. The 22 books of the New Testament canon were first listed by Athanasius. Again we can see the providence of God in that the inspired literature was recognized without any council.
The fact that the Roman Catholic hierarchy chooses to add books that were never part of the inspired works of God--is not an act of God., it is an act of men with an agenda.
If God really wanted us to have those books--we would know it. And we would be in agreement about it.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 08, 2004.
What the Jewish people believed about their Scriptures is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what the Holy Spirit guided the Christian Church to accept into its Bible. Athanasius and other early Catholic leaders had drawn up various canonical lists which disagreed with one another, which is precisely why the Pope called a Church Council to settle the matter once and for all time. The 46 Old Testament writings and 27 New Testament writings selected by that Council are the Bible, exactly as it was used by all Christians on earth for the next 1,200 years. Anything less is a partial Bible, and anything more contains non-Scriptural material.If the Apostles closed the canon, then the canon consists of Old Testament writings only, for those were the only Scriptures the Apostles knew.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2004.
Well since the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures belonged to the Jews and since Jesus confirmed their canon--I'd say that what they said was indeed quite relevant. They are the people who gave us the Old Testament. They were God's chosen prophets. They matter just as much as the apostles.The Roman Catholic Church and its councils are what is irrelevant.
The Scriptures--both Old and New Testaments were written and known long before any council sat down to ratify what was already established by God's divine providence.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 08, 2004.
"The Scriptures--both Old and New Testaments were written and known long before any council sat down to ratify what was already established by God's divine providence."A: Of course they werw ritten long before - as were hundreds of other early documents. What the Catholic Church did was to sort out, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which of those hundreds of writings are actually divinely-inspired Scripture and which are not; and to gather them into one book for the first time - the book we call The Bible.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
It was already sorted out Paul....All the Catholic councils did was confirm it. But the books were already widely accepted and/or rejected. The councils neither added or subtractred from what was already understood.
Jesus confirms the canon of the Old Testament Scripture and the apostles confirmed their own literature. The Bible confirms itself!
The apocryphal books were never included or widely accepted....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Faith,The deuterocanonical books were the least of it! The Council studied nearly a hundred letters which were currently being quoted in worship services in various local churches, and at least a dozen different gospels which were likewise being used as Scripture in various local churches while disputed in others. Sure, there were some Scriptures that were universally accepted, like most of Paul's letters, and John's gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Those Scriptures were not the problem. It was the many disputed writings which were cause for concern - some of which were finally accepted into the Canon by the Council, most of which were not accepted.
Among the most disputed writings which were finally accepted were: Hebrews; James; 2 Peter; 2 and 3 John; Jude; Revelation of John. Among the most disputed writings that were finally rejected were: Shepherd of Hermes; Letter of Barnabus; Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Gospel of the Hebrews; Gospel of Philip; Revelation of Peter; Acts of Peter; the Didache. The only way you or anyone else knows that the first list is Scriptural and the second list is not is by the infallible pronouncement of the Council. In fact, that is also true of the undisputed writings. Popular concurrence is not absolute evidence of authenticity.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
These books were rejected, Paul M. as you said, but their teachings were not.Shepherd of Hermes; Letter of Barnabus; Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Gospel of the Hebrews; Gospel of Philip; Revelation of Peter; Acts of Peter (for Peter's travel to Rome); the Didache
besides the Protoevangelium of James (for Mary's virginity and immaculate conception) and the Gospel of Nicodemus for Hell.
One can see that just because a book was rejected its teaching wasn't.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 09, 2004.
It was important for Christians to know which works were true scriptures and which weren't. For one thing, they needed to know what teachings they should follow. For another, they needed to know what writings they should protect if they had to, because they didn't want to be tortured or killed for trying to save a book that wasn't God's word. About a hundred and thirty years after Christ's resurrection, bishops began making lists of the writings that they regarded as scripture. Their lists were usually close to each other but did not always agree exactly with one another.At the beginning of the year 367, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria sat down to write an Easter letter to his church. He wrote these "festal" letters every year to put his people into the right frame of mind for celebrating Easter.
This year, he saw that church people were being fooled by books that claimed to be scripture but weren't. For instance, they might wonder if the Epistle of Barnabas was to be obeyed. Or they might fall for The Gospel of Peter by the Gnostics, a group who claimed secret knowledge of God. Peter's name was given to the work, to give it creditability, but it was not by the apostle. Athanasius realized that the best defense against error was a clear understanding of scripture... but which writings were actually scripture? In his festal letter, he wrote, "Inasmuch as some have taken in hand to draw up for themselves an arrangement of the so- called apocryphal books and to intersperse them with the divinely inspired scripture...it has seemed good to me...to set forth in order the books which are included in the canon and have been delivered to us with accreditation that they are divine."
The church already accepted the books of the Jewish scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit. These became our Old Testament. The church also agreed that books and letters written by the apostles or by writers under their direct influence were probably scripture, if the books had been used for a long time by the church. These became our New Testament. Athanasius thought it best to list the trustworthy books. He was the first man to compile a list of New Testament books as we know them.
Athanasius had a high regard for scripture. He wrote, "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words that they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And he reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.'"
Because of the importance of the city of Alexandria, Athanasius was a well-known bishop. Much of his life was spent battling heresy, especially Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ. His strong views got him into trouble with the emperor and he was forced into exile five times. Each time, the Egyptians welcomed him back. Because of his influence, Athanasius' list of books helped settle the question of which books do and don't belong in the Bible. People recognized the truth of what the great bishop wrote.
The books of the Bible are not God's word because Athanasius said so; they are in the Bible because almost everyone in the church recognized their wisdom as coming from God.
Athanasius was only ratifying the decision of many devout Christians who saw the power of certain books to draw people to Christ and change their lives and thought. By contrast, the gnostic books had no life-correcting power, so they fell out of use.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Faith, you contradict yourself. First you say (correctly) "he saw that church people were being fooled by books that claimed to be scripture but weren't". Obviously then the people had no way of accurately defining for themselves what shoud be regarded as Scripture. Then you say that he "was only ratifying the decision of many devout Christians who saw the power of certain books to draw people to Christ and change their lives and thought", suggesting that the people did know which books to accept, and he merely approved of their decision. This idea of course is contrary to the historical facts. In any case, Athanasius was merely one local bishop and could not speak for the universal Church. His Canonical list was no more authoritative of binding than the lists drawn up by various others. To be binding on the Church as a whole, the Canon had to be defined and approved by either the Pope Himself or a Church Council. It was defined infallibly by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and was then ratified by the Pope, becoming part of the Christian deposit of faith for all time. That's where the Bible came from, and that's what the Bible is.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
Paul--it is obvious to me that as time went on--the things that the early believers intuitively understood was starting to get lost in time and in population.The point is that the New Testament books were recognized early on and finally needed to be ratified because of people trying to confuse the truth with false books and false doctrine.
The bottom line is that the Scriptures were handed to us by Divine Providence and were understood long before any council ever sat down to ratify what was already understood.
The Catholic Church is not responsible for picking the books in the Bible.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 09, 2004.
Sorry, but history indicates otherwise.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.
How so Paul?Did Athanasius just guess what the New Testament Scriptures were-- sort of like a mystic or medium or something????
Was his list some lucky vision into the future??
It just so happens that he listed the very books that happen to be in the canon??? Minus the apocryphal books too??
No....history shows that the early church recognized the canon and the Catholic councils simply ratified them.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 10, 2004.
Here is the Easter Letter in toto. I can point out here that Athanasius is not referring to the "apochypha" as we know it in his first paragraph, but rather a group of spurious letters that were floating around at the time. How do I know this? Because as you will see he lists the deuterocanicals in the last paragraph of this quote as books AFFIRMED BY THE FATHERS! Yet they were not officially canonized as of yet. So you see, the list was not yet complete but was simply in the making at the writing of this Easter letter.I note that he lists Baruch as part of the Old Testament canon; a book NOT listed in the Protestant O.T. Furthermore, I have located the Canon from Rome authenticating the SAME BOOKS plead in Carthage and Hippo and will post it separately.
*****************
Each year, Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria from 328-373, wrote an Easter letter to be read in the churches in Egypt. His 39th Festal Letter, written in 367, provides the oldest list of the New Testament canon that we have.
"As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (en toutois monois) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you."
(Whoops, I forgot to get the date, etc.)
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 11, 2004.
Here is the decree from Pope Damasus."Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384), Decree of, Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN.
*******
Faith, you made a comment earlier: "Did Athanasius just guess what the New Testament Scriptures were-- sort of like a mystic or medium or something????" AU CONTRAIRE! It was hard hard work! There were disputes. There were battles. Councils convened for YEARS to hash it through. They didn't have fax machines. They didn't have e- mail. They didn't have the European/Asian/African Postal Service, UPS or FedEx. They didn't have copy machines! IT TOOK TIME! Corresondence from one region to another was by horseback, or camelback, as the case may be. How long did it take to transport memos back and forth? A long long time.
NO, WE DON'T BELIEVE ATHANASIUS was some sort of fortune-telling mystic. WHERE IN THE WORLD DID YOU GET THAT IDEA? It is Protestants, ignorant of history, who claim "it just happened, and I have faith it's right," as if it just dropped out of the sky, with no human effort or input.
Faith, with all due respect to you, may I beseech you to read the letters of the early church leaders, beginning at Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp (2nd generation Christians taught by the disciples themselves)!! You can find them at ccel.org. and it will give you a REAL sense of what things were like back then. Throw out your preconceived notions of what the Church looked like, and go straight- to-the-horses-mouth. The love these people had for the Lord sent them to the mouths of lions, gallows and burning pits for CENTURIES. You have invented in your mind a pre-Constantine church that does not exist, and it's time you meet your ancestors! But Faith, beware, because they were CATHOLIC!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 11, 2004.
Gail--I had already posted the Easter letter in full.
Athanasius (A.D. 367). Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria. His list was published as part of his Easter Letter in 367. After the list he declares, "these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away." The English text below is from Metzger.
From his Thirty-ninth Festal Epistle.
3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second(a) being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth(b) as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second (c) are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.
7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.
*****************
Remember Gail--I wasn't posting Athanasius because I think his Word is God's Word.., but because I wanted to show you that those Catholic councils neither added or subtracted anything that wasn't already understood long before they ever convened.
I don't know the history as to why that although Baruch was not accepted by the Jews..., yet it worked its way into Athanasius's list for the Old Testament. We reject Baruch for the same reason we reject the other deutero books that were never part of the Hebrew canon-- they were not written by a prophet or apostle.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.
Neither wereEcclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ruth, psalms,and proverbs.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.
Gail..,Apparently the real Baruch was a Hebrew Scribe----and the book Baruch is highly suspect. Most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremiah is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos, that is, inscribed with a false name.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.
Hi Faith,I didn't see your post on the Easter letter, but it does not seem to exactly match mine. It's kind of hard to tell without printing them out and comparing.
Anyway, you highlighted this portion of paragraph 3:
3. . . .Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture.
By apochrypha, Athanasius was indicating the various spurious letters that were being tossed around at his time -- not the deuterocanicals. He addresses the deuterocanicals in the last paragraph (I think it's in your post too, I know it's in mine.)
Also, just for your information the book of Baruch is still in the Catholic Bible. I'm looking at it right now. Your bible does not contain that book.
I'm interesting to know what you think Athanasius' list proves. His letter shows that the canonization of the Catholic Bible was a "work- in-progress." The Church was being pressed upon mightily to develop "once-for-all" THE canon. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage provided the vital function of putting an end to the disputes. As Paul pointed out earlier, the Pope commissioned these councils, reviewed their results and the matter was settled.
You might be interested to know that in Europe the churches (Protestant) contain the deuteros PLUS two more books that neither the American protestant Bible, NOR the Catholic Bible has.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 12, 2004.
Gail.,It just seems to me that Athanasius says that there was a decided canon and that it had been passed down by the apostles themselves... from generation to generation--but that lately, some were trying to mix into the decided Scriptures--other suspect writings. This is exactly what was done and we can see it in the Catholic Old Testament. These books (called apocryphal) were mixed into Jewish Hebrew Scriptures. The Jews rejected this practice and were forced to officially canonize their Scriptures to stop this practice. If you will notice--the Hebrew Scriptures do not contain those apocryphal books--including Baruch.
Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been *fully persuaded*, as they who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
I just think that Athanasius's list shows us that the Books in the Bible were known long before any Catholic council sat down to ratify them. He says it himself--he wanted to officially list the canon of Scripture because some were trying to falsely interject books that did not belong. He doesn't seem to be saying that there was any question as to what were the known books--but that he wanted to keep it that way. He doesn't seem to be suggesting that there was any confusion at all in the past--but that the confusion was then arising in his day.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.
This is probably as good a place as any to admit my mistake regarding the Council of Carthage and the Old Testament canon. I had posted that the Council of Carthage was a local synod and thus was not binding on the whole Church. But subsequent discussions and further research have shown otherwise. Please see the Questions for Catholics thread.The discussion has long since moved on, but I wanted to make this point and apologize for not digging deep enough to find all the facts before posting. I can't even find the original thread where I posted that reply. But the subject was similar to this thread.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 12, 2004.