Maybe some of them wouldn’t accept that the Catholic Church compiled the bible and found a different history of the bible?
The only “alternate history” I have heard is to simply deny any significance to the Church’s compiling the Bible. The argument goes something like - the Church simply ratified what God had preordained…so it doesn’t matter - God gave us the Bible…etc.
Oh - yea - I do remember a second one…
The argument that the Church “added books” at Trent…does that qualify as an “alternate bible history”?
It is something like this:
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is self-attesting.
Anything else is secondary, tertiary, etc.
The 6 W’s don’t matter:
Who, What, When, Where, How, Why.
It is what it is because it is.
Kind of like Descartes:
I think, therefore I am.
Of course this is in general. There are plenty of Protestant scholars and lay people that have a deeper understanding of the history of the Bible and some of them have no problem recognizing the Church’s role. However, they don’t recognize today’s Church as being exclusively the same one of the Apostles and they support a diversification of worship and doctrine. But that’s food for another thread
It greatly varies and depends on which Protestant groups you are talking about. The early history of the Bible in how it was decided which books are to part of the cannon is usually ignored. Likewise St. Jerome’s Latin translation done shortly afterwards is usually ignored. Most try to point to the Gutenburg press and yes the first book printed was the Bible in Latin by a Catholic. Usually, they start with Martin Luther who took seven books out and then translated the Bible into German. Most Protestant Bible history starts with the translations of the Bible into vernacular language and it goes from there. They trace the English to Wycliff, then Tyndall, then KJV 1611. So most of the focus is not how the Bible was put together but on translations of the Bible into the vernacular and how that big bad Catholic Church didn’t approved of it. They fail to show that a number of the earliest vernacular translations were done to discredit Catholic teaching by those that were anti-Catholic and wanted to prove their ideas as Biblical.
Or that the earliest translations of the Bible into vernacular were done by the Church, and they predate Luther.
The CC as far as I have understood it is that bibles could be translated into the various languages as long as the translations were correct and without error. This was done long before Luther had his translations into German, and long before Wycliff etc.
=robwar;12343572]It greatly varies and depends on which Protestant groups you are talking about. The early history of the Bible in how it was decided which books are to part of the cannon is usually ignored. Likewise St. Jerome’s Latin translation done shortly afterwards is usually ignored.
And neither should be ignored. The role of the unified Church Catholic is indisputable, and St. Jerome’s work and his opinions regarding some books are quite important.
Most try to point to the Gutenburg press and yes the first book printed was the Bible in Latin by a Catholic. Usually, they start with Martin Luther who took seven books out and then translated the Bible into German.
Forprotestants who believe this, the first sentence is an obvious error, as is the second. Luther actually (with help) translated all of the books of the typical western Bible, and added the Prayer of Manasseh. So, the idea that he “removed then translated” is patently false, and leaves some protestants without an understanding of the importance of the DC books.
Most Protestant Bible history starts with the translations of the Bible into vernacular language and it goes from there. They trace the English to Wycliff, then Tyndall, then KJV 1611. So most of the focus is not how the Bible was put together but on translations of the Bible into the vernacular and how that big bad Catholic Church didn’t approved of it. They fail to show that a number of the earliest vernacular translations were done to discredit Catholic teaching by those that were anti-Catholic and wanted to prove their ideas as Biblical.
Interestingly, the original 1611 KJV also had 73 books, but some wish to ignore that fact, too.
Well…first time I have come across this: Using 1cor4:16…not to go beyond what is written
The claim is Paul is making reference to the books of the Bible, even though Paul had no idea about his epistles being compiled in the Bible…and the whole context of 1cor 4:16 is refencing the actual epistle, and the epistle was written for a specific purpose and circumstance and for a particular church or people…the church at corinth, the corinthians.
Biblical history was never a stressed point in my Pentecostal church. The Bible just came into being with the establishment of the church, probably edited by Peter and Paul themselves, and was translated in its most perfect form with the King James version. That was the idea we were given.
Every time my parents give me grief about being Episcopalian (“Don’t you know that’s like Catholicism?”) I’d like to remind them that the KJV is a product of the Church of England.
Some would say that’s true. But they’d be wrong.
Most knowledgable Protestants recognize the role the Catholic Church played in forming the Bible.
I was compling a number of histories of the Bible from a number of Protestant groups. Most fundamentalist do point to KJV 1611 as being the most accurate and those people certainly do not read the DC books even if they were translated in the original. I was also answering Op question of how a number of Protestant groups talk about the history of the Bible and how it was put together and most groups point to the early reformers as the ones that first translated into the venacular
Yes, I realize that but with a number of groups, that is ignored alone with a number of other facts.
I understand. In many ways, I was supporting your comments.
Martin Luther did.
[quote=Wikipedia: Luther’s Canon]Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.
“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”. However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.
[quote=Wikipedia: Luther’s Canon]Luther eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Old Testament
Luther no more “eliminated” the DC’s than Cardinal Cajetan did, and they held essentially the same** opinion** on them. The key word here being opinion.
But beyond that, it doesn’t speak to the OP’s question, which is about Bible history. Some may, polemically, dispute Luther’s knowledge of the history of the bible, but the fact is he was well read. He knew what Eusebius, St. Jerome, and the Fathers said about scripture.
Love the bolded section…
It does speak to OP’s question. Luther thought James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation should be removed from the canon. Which means that he thought Rome made mistakes when they assembled the canon.
That is a very different Bible history than the Roman Catholic one.
It’s a different opinion, cC, based on the same history of the Bible. There are not different histories.
Luther may have had the opinion that the Antilegomena was not equal to the other books, but that was his opinion, and he says so frequently in his prefaces. Further, he regularly preached from all of them, including James, all through his life.
From the preface on Hebrews:
However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them.
The prefaces can be found in the link.
And Calvin taught from Baruch. Consistency was not the reformers strong suit.
[quote=The Preface to the Epistle of James]Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.
Please note that Scripture describes James as an Apostle (Galatians 1:18-19). Luther is essentially saying what many modern liberal Protestants say - the Catholic church added books to the Bible, that were not of Apostolic origin.