Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jun 23, '13, 10:21 pm
latin_rite latin_rite is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2006
Posts: 1,846
Religion: Catholic..Traditional
Default How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?
My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn't written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn't so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek
__________________
I don't know what’s going on with you people. You fully believe what 12 men wrote 2,000yrs ago. But you call people idiots, Because they believe what 40,000 people saw a 100 yrs ago.
"Quote from a homosexual atheist in response to a evangelical posters claims that Fatima was a lie."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 23, '13, 11:57 pm
thistle thistle is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,476
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How where the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 24, '13, 12:08 am
latin_rite latin_rite is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2006
Posts: 1,846
Religion: Catholic..Traditional
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

I don't fully understand that link
__________________
I don't know what’s going on with you people. You fully believe what 12 men wrote 2,000yrs ago. But you call people idiots, Because they believe what 40,000 people saw a 100 yrs ago.
"Quote from a homosexual atheist in response to a evangelical posters claims that Fatima was a lie."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 24, '13, 4:08 am
thistle thistle is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,476
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by latin_rite View Post
I don't fully understand that link
I just happen to have been looking at the table which is what the link opened at but have you started at "Home" and then worked your way through the entire website?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 24, '13, 7:09 am
JRKH's Avatar
JRKH JRKH is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 14, 2007
Posts: 22,616
Religion: Catholic Revert
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by latin_rite View Post
How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?
My understanding is that there were 4 basic criteria for inclusion in the NT.
(From an earlier thread)
1. Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2. Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
Information from Catholic-resources& Dr . Felix Just


Quote:
My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn't written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn't so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek
Yes you would be fundamentally correct, but since we do not have any of the original autographs, you will have no way of proving this conclusively to those who hold to later dating. We cannot be positive in many cases of precisely when a given piece was penned.
Also - yes it would be correct to say that most of the NT bible was written in Greek since at that time Greek was sort of the "universal" language in the Roman Empire. Even the OT was translated into Greek - The Septuagint - and was widely used by Jews living outside of Palestine. This occurred well before the birth of Christ.

Peace
James
__________________
.... if I have all faith so as to move mountians but have not love, I am nothing. - (1Cor 13:2)


The Best book on Spirituality that I ever Read: "The Fulfillment of All Desire"

Oh my God , I will continue
to perform, all my actions
for the love of Thee
Amen.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 24, '13, 8:47 am
bknewto7 bknewto7 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2012
Posts: 33
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

The sciptures fround in the old testament were around before Christ and considered by the Jews to be the inspired word of God. The documents of the New testament were written between 70 and 150 AD. (This can vary depending on source). The 27 books that comprise the new testament were not declared untill 367 AD when Athanasius (A Catholic Bishop) promulgated a list of the 27 books that could be used in the liturgy. This list was latter approved for use by the universal Church by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 24, '13, 9:31 am
DaddyGirl's Avatar
DaddyGirl DaddyGirl is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 5,017
Religion: off-the-record "discerning"
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

It took centuries of debate...and debate...and debate.
There were many, many books used by Christians in the first centuries that, once "rejected" for inclusion in the canon in the late 4th century, were then called heretical and destroyed.
Some of these books were hidden and have since been found (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels, for example...the forty books of the Apocryphal Gospels...the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, etc, etc).
Some included in the biblical canon now almost did not make it in...(the book of revelations, i think)

It was decided upon by the various councils?
And that one Catholic bishop already mentioned had listed in a letter the ones he thought were acceptable...and those became a template and guide.
__________________
"Wherever you go, there you are."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 24, '13, 10:02 am
pocohombre pocohombre is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 27, 2012
Posts: 1,539
Religion: protestant
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyGirl View Post
It took centuries of debate...and debate...and debate.
There were many, many books used by Christians in the first centuries that, once "rejected" for inclusion in the canon in the late 4th century, were then called heretical and destroyed.
Some of these books were hidden and have since been found (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels, for example...the forty books of the Apocryphal Gospels...the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, etc, etc).
Some included in the biblical canon now almost did not make it in...(the book of revelations, i think)

It was decided upon by the various councils?
And that one Catholic bishop already mentioned had listed in a letter the ones he thought were acceptable...and those became a template and guide.
Centuries, yes and no. I would say those we have now were considered immediately as scripture by those who receievd the actual letter. Paul and Peter seem to allude to their writings as "scripture", and were quite aware, I believe, that they wetre "adding"' to the tradition of scripture of old. For example, those in Corinth received letters from Paul, and they were careful to verify his authorship. Beyond that, there was full acceptance, from the beginning. They did not "wait " for approval from distant churches or for a council. They did not say, "Thanks Paul, we know this is from you but we have to wait a bit before we consider them to be inspired, maybe in a century we will declare them so". What took time was universal acceptance, by those far and away from original recipients. I have heard there were three kinds of sacred writings from early church: those widely accepted as scripture, those only partially accepted, and those rejected, rejected from the beginning I might add. Finally, more and more "books" were being declared as "sacred scripture" from early fathers in second century, with many quotations. By the end of second century almost all books are quoted as sacred. In 325 it has been said that Constantine ordered 50 bibles to be made by Eusebius, who quickly came up with consent for the books (27). The rest has been written about future councils etc, not to mention as far away as Trent. It should be noted that the time it took to consider some of the 2nd group of books actually shows the seriousnees and carefullness that the churches took in considering just what is inspired and apart from other religious writings. And no other "ancient" writings has better, earlier copies to the original than the NT. Possesion of no other "ancient" writings could cost you your life also.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 24, '13, 11:35 am
PeaceInChrist PeaceInChrist is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Posts: 536
Religion: Catholic!
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre View Post
Centuries, yes and no. I would say those we have now were considered immediately as scripture by those who receievd the actual letter. Paul and Peter seem to allude to their writings as "scripture", and were quite aware, I believe, that they wetre "adding"' to the tradition of scripture of old. For example, those in Corinth received letters from Paul, and they were careful to verify his authorship. Beyond that, there was full acceptance, from the beginning. They did not "wait " for approval from distant churches or for a council. They did not say, "Thanks Paul, we know this is from you but we have to wait a bit before we consider them to be inspired, maybe in a century we will declare them so". What took time was universal acceptance, by those far and away from original recipients. I have heard there were three kinds of sacred writings from early church: those widely accepted as scripture, those only partially accepted, and those rejected, rejected from the beginning I might add. Finally, more and more "books" were being declared as "sacred scripture" from early fathers in second century, with many quotations. By the end of second century almost all books are quoted as sacred. In 325 it has been said that Constantine ordered 50 bibles to be made by Eusebius, who quickly came up with consent for the books (27). The rest has been written about future councils etc, not to mention as far away as Trent. It should be noted that the time it took to consider some of the 2nd group of books actually shows the seriousnees and carefullness that the churches took in considering just what is inspired and apart from other religious writings. And no other "ancient" writings has better, earlier copies to the original than the NT. Possesion of no other "ancient" writings could cost you your life also.
Actually, it did take centuries. The Eastern Church had a problem with John's Revelation, and many fathers had issues with Hebrews. Other works, such as Hermas (The Shepherd) and the Epistle of Barnabas, Peter's Apocalypse, ect, were considered by many to be inspired. So, yes, it took many years for it to be codified and determined by the early Church, in councils and synods, and proliferated throughout the Church. Denying that it was a universal Church effort on behalf of those with authority (the bishops) is understandable because of your Protestant background, but it is not accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 24, '13, 12:16 pm
pocohombre pocohombre is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 27, 2012
Posts: 1,539
Religion: protestant
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceInChrist View Post
Actually, it did take centuries. The Eastern Church had a problem with John's Revelation, and many fathers had issues with Hebrews. Other works, such as Hermas (The Shepherd) and the Epistle of Barnabas, Peter's Apocalypse, ect, were considered by many to be inspired. So, yes, it took many years for it to be codified and determined by the early Church, in councils and synods, and proliferated throughout the Church. Denying that it was a universal Church effort on behalf of those with authority (the bishops) is understandable because of your Protestant background, but it is not accurate.
Actually neither of us said anything "inaccurate". Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand' understandably.

Last edited by pocohombre; Jun 24, '13 at 12:27 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jun 24, '13, 8:45 pm
PeaceInChrist PeaceInChrist is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Posts: 536
Religion: Catholic!
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre View Post
Actually neither of us said anything "inaccurate". Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand' understandably.
I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jun 24, '13, 8:58 pm
PeaceInChrist PeaceInChrist is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Posts: 536
Religion: Catholic!
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre View Post
Actually neither of us said anything "inaccurate". Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand' understandably.
I'm sorry, I thought you were saying it was some kind of effort by individual local communities. I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.

Though at the time of Eusebius, they still weren't certain on Revelations (it is placed as both spurious and canon, because of disagreement), and many are disputed, such as 2 & 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter. So it did indeed take centuries, as we have agreed upon.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jun 24, '13, 9:09 pm
Steveabrous's Avatar
Steveabrous Steveabrous is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2012
Posts: 911
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by latin_rite View Post
How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?
My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn't written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn't so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek
first of all the NT was written between 50 and 150 A.D. not 50- 150 years after Christ, and some of Paul's writings were 15 years after the resurrection.

Now, the argument is meant to make you think that The NT is not reliable since it wasn't written at the time the events of Jesus took place. You have to understand that writing back then was not like it is today, it was a lot more difficult. Paper was scarce and didn't last long, also the vast majority of people were illiterate anyway so whats the point? Oral tradition was the norm and considered more reliable because a person would study under a teacher for years memorizing word for word the story/ teaching/ etc.( It wasn't like the class exercise of whispering a phrase into a persons ear and they whisper it to the next, and on down the line and by the time you got to the end it was all messed up. As these deniers will undoubtedly try to say), Only after years of oral tradition would something be found worthy of putting into writing. To have everything in our NT written within 100 years of the events is actually very early. And much earlier then historical events that these deniers don't question as historically accurate like the illiad and the odyssey by homer, the writings of Plato and Sacrates, and the events of Julius Cesear and Cleopatra.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jun 25, '13, 7:10 am
pocohombre pocohombre is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 27, 2012
Posts: 1,539
Religion: protestant
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceInChrist View Post
I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.
Be glad in this also, that I believe also the Second Vatican stresses to focus on the fact that God gave the world the bible, God gave us the bible. This in the spirit of ecumenicalism with "other" brothers, and to avoid a narrower focal point of paraochialism. After all I could quite accurately say Zondervan gave me the bible.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jun 27, '13, 8:31 pm
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,290
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyGirl View Post
It took centuries of debate...and debate...and debate.
There were many, many books used by Christians in the first centuries that, once "rejected" for inclusion in the canon in the late 4th century, were then called heretical and destroyed.
Some of these books were hidden and have since been found (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels, for example...the forty books of the Apocryphal Gospels...the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, etc, etc).
Some included in the biblical canon now almost did not make it in...(the book of revelations, i think)

It was decided upon by the various councils?
And that one Catholic bishop already mentioned had listed in a letter the ones he thought were acceptable...and those became a template and guide.
You have to remember that most gnostic literature did not have a wide, universal circulation, unlike say, the canonical gospels: these works circulated mainly within the groups themselves, and weren't necessarily known across the whole of Christendom. In fact, some weren't even intended to be simply 'read', but were reserved for initiates. I mean, the surviving papyri of the four gospels outnumber these 'gospels', most of which are preserved in only one or two manuscripts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3893Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3461Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:59 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.