The Decision on the Canon of Scripture

[bzkoss236]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

The Eastern Churches (of which there are a number--Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, so-called Oriental Orthodox, etc.) also trace their roots back to the apostles and have had varying relationships (or lack thereof) with the Western Church over the centuries. So they didn't appear in the 11th century; the church in Antioch, just as an example would pre-date the church in Rome.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel calls these the "ancient churches" which I think is a nice neutral term.

Anyway, since these church have their own biblical canons, it seems at least possible that their definitions of the canon would predate the Western one. Potential real examples would be Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the oldest surviving Bibles.

First, your presumption is that the Catholic Church didn't exist until there was the church in Rome. Those early Eastern churches were part of the Catholic Church (then just considered Christian Church) until the Great Schism. Also, having a collection of books doesn't make it an official Canon and doesn't mean they were assembled with the intention of collecting inspired books. Also, the two codexes you mentioned are, no where I've read, referred to as bibles. They've been used as references in assisting translations of the Bible, and they are said to contain some of the books of the Bible.

[Dave Noonan]

Originally Posted by bzkoss236

First, your presumption is that the Catholic Church didn't exist until there was the church in Rome. Those early Eastern churches were part of the Catholic Church (then just considered Christian Church) until the Great Schism. Also, having a collection of books doesn't make it an official Canon and doesn't mean they were assembled with the intention of collecting inspired books. Also, the two codexes you mentioned are, no where I've read, referred to as bibles. They've been used as references in assisting translations of the Bible, and they are said to contain some of the books of the Bible.

That's really not an accurate view of church history. The schism sometimes referred to as the "Great Schism" (though the schism with the Oriental Orthodox 500 years earlier probably involved more Christians) only refers one particular eastern church, the Byzantine Church. You're presenting history as if there were only one church until the 11th century, when two suddenly appeared--that's just not congruent with the facts.

There is a lot of information on the history of the various Eastern Churches available on the Internet and I think you will find such information very eye-opening. I will also look for Fr. Groeshel's discussion of the topic as well. A good book on the topic is Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity.

Yes, having a collection of books doesn't necessarily doesn't equate to an official canon, but it does provide at least some sense of which books the compilers thought were important and which books need to be chosen for a collection of scripture. Here I would suggest the book: Codex Sinaiticus:The Story of the World's Oldest Bible by D.C. Parker.

I think the fact that each Eastern Church devised their own biblical canon shows that the ancient churches were in probably agreement on some important things and on some other important things, not in so much agreement.

[mackbrislawn]

Originally Posted by CutlerB

There's this claim around: "The Catholic Church didn't give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it." This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

There are a couple of considerations here.

First, it seems to me Protestants are very fond of word play. That is, I don't know any difference between recognising what the Canon is, and establishing it. Both phrases mean the same thing, just different wording. When you establish the canon, isn't that the same thing as recognizing what writings should be in it? But Protestants hope to confuse people this way.

There were a host of early and separate Christian writings floating around in the 3rd and 4th centuries and it wasn't easy for the faithful to know which were truly apostolic and hence inspired and from God and which weren't. The church therefore "established" or "recognized" and made known to the people which writings were inspired and from God and hence appropriate for church usage. It is further believed that the establishment of the canon of inspired writings was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A second consideration is that western Europe was evangelized by the Roman church, meaning that western Europe received its Christianity via the Roman Catholic church. Western Europe got its very belief in God, and its belief in scripture and the canon of Scripture from the Roman Catholic church. So it is quite true to say that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. "Us" being us of western European heritage. Protestantism is a product of western Europe, so Protestantism indeed got its Bible from the Catholic church.

Without the Catholic church, we would be still pagans, or more likely, Muslim.

[mackbrislawn]

Originally Posted by CutlerB

There's this claim around: "The Catholic Church didn't give us the Bible. It only recognised what the Canon was, it did not establish it." This claim obviously comes from Protestant sources.

I find it confusing. Sites like CARM.org advance this statement in an attempt to deprive the Church of its authority. But what is the answer to this? Did she establish it or did she recognise only what had always been true and inspired scripture?

There are a couple of considerations here.

First, it seems to me Protestants are very fond of word play. That is, I don't know any difference between recognising what the Canon is, and establishing it. Both phrases mean the same thing, just different wording. When you establish the canon, isn't that the same thing as recognizing what writings should be in it? But Protestants hope to confuse people this way.

There were a host of early and separate Christian writings floating around in the 3rd and 4th centuries and it wasn't easy for the faithful to know which were truly apostolic and hence inspired and from God and which weren't. The church therefore "established" or "recognized" and made known to the people which writings were inspired and from God and therefore appropriate for church usage. It is further believed that the establishment of the canon of inspired writings was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A second consideration is that western Europe was evangelized by the Roman church, meaning that western Europe received its Christianity via the Roman Catholic church. Western Europe got its very belief in God, and its belief in scripture and the canon of Scripture from the Catholic church. So it is quite true to say that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. "Us" being us of western European heritage. Protestantism is a product of western Europe, so Protestantism indeed got its Bible from the Catholic church.

Without the Catholic church, we would be still pagans, or more likely, Muslim.