The Authority of the Bible...

[aprilannies]

There are many Christians who accept the Bible as 'The Word of God' and believe it's authority to be absolute. These same Christians also believe in the Bible as being completely literal, (i.e. Young Earth advocates). My question is really to Protestants, though Catholics are free to answer. How can the Bible be divine, when man selected what books to include? Why do you consider the Protestant canon more holy than the Catholic canon including the Apocrypha? And to Catholics, why your canon instead of lets say... Marcionism?

Okay... history...

<b>Old Testament Canon</b>

<b>c. 200 BCE</b> is the first translation of the OT from Hebrew to Greek, this called the Septuagint, it includes 46 books.

<b>CE 30-100</b> Christians start using the Septuagint as their scriptures as well as passing down the oral tradition of the teachings of Christ. The Jews are upset by this.

<b>c. CE100</b> The Council of Jamniah is held and rabbis decided to limit canon to 39 OT books that are found in Hebrew.

<b>c. CE 400</b> Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into the vulgate (Latin). He wants to limit the OT to the 39 books accepted by the Jews, calling the additional 7 'hidden books' or Apocrypha, but Pope Damascus wants all 46 in the OT, since he's the Pope, he wins.

<b>CE 1536</b> Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into German. He decides that the Jews wrote the OT, so they must know best what the correct canon is, only accepts 39 books. He puts the Apocrypha in an index, he doesn't consider them equal to holy scripture, but deems them useful and good to read.

<b>CE 1546</b> The Council of Trent reaffirms the all 46 books as being canonical.

<b>New Testament Canon</b>

<b>c. CE 51-125</b> The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).

<b>c. CE 140</b> Marcion, a Roman proposes the first exclusive canon of Christian scripture. He accepts portions of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles. He rejects the entire OT, 3 other gospels, Acts, and the epistles of Peter and John. He removed any passages that connects Christianity with Judaism, teaching the Gods of the OT and the NT were different entities. He is rejected as heretical by the Church and his beliefs become known as a form of Gnostic Christianity.

<b>c. CE 200</b> One list of canon, complied in Rome known as the Muratorian Canon, the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

<b>CE 367</b> The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367

<b>CE 904</b> Pope Damasus lists the NT books in present number and order in a letter.

<b>CE 1442</b> Council of Florence is held and the entire church recognizes the 27 books, but does not declare them unalterable.

<b>CE 1536</b> Luther translates the Bible from Greek to German and tries to remove 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation), partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines, partially because of the early debate over their inclusion, but he is unsuccessful, however in German Language Lutheran Bibles, these books are ordered last.

<b>CE 1546</b> Council of Trent reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.


As late as 1536 what belonged in the Bible and what didn't was still being debated. Why not include The Gospel of Thomas or The Book of Mormon? Since God didn't clearly specify what is canonical, who's to say what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't? Do you see my question?

[juliod]

c. CE 140 Marcion, a Roman proposes the first exclusive canon of Christian scripture. He accepts portions of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles. He rejects the entire OT, 3 other gospels, Acts, and the epistles of Peter and John. He removed any passages that connects Christianity with Judaism, teaching the Gods of the OT and the NT were different entities. He is rejected as heretical by the Church and his beliefs become known as a form of Gnostic Christianity.

One thing needs to be emphasized. We know little of Marcionite writings and teachings, except through polemics by the church known later as orthodox. The Marcionites were a large group in the 1st and 2nd Century.

It's wrong to say Marcion removed judaic passages from the gospels. We can only say that they were not present. The Marcionites claimed those passages were interpolations by judiac cults.

One thing that stands out is that all or most of the christian controversies have never been settled. Questions about whether christianity is for jews only, for gentiles only, or for everybody. Questions about whether the "trinity" belongs in the canon or was added later. The current canon seems to have been arrived at by exhaustion, not by any agreement among the faithful (much less divine revelation).

Just a few things for your chrsitian types to keep in mind when answering AA's questions.

DanZ

[snowman]

Was the book of Mormon ever considered by 'christians'?

Lets not forget the the original KJV had other 'added' writings which were later removed.

Still, it is good question and something that should be considered.

Is this supposed to nullify the 'reality' of God?

[juliod]

Is this supposed to nullify the 'reality' of God?

Sure! We know "god" only through the bible. The atheist position is that YHWH is simply a made-up fiction. Once you realize that the bible is simply an ordinary fictional myth, copied and revised by ordinary people, then you realize there is no basis for accepting christianity (or judaism).

BTW, at the beginning of the scholarly period, when people began to systematically examine the bible with a view to correcting the alterations and interpolations, one of the first scholars collected over 30,000 variations on the Textus Receptus.

DanZ (Don't you just hate it when there is a parablepsis at a homeoteluton?)

[keltzkroz]

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I think its easier to answer the question about why its not included in the Bible by looking at some of the beliefs of Mormons. I took a brief look at the some of their beliefs from the ff. website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ndex.shtml

Now, I'm not sure if the beliefs of Mormons are accurately described in this website, so that needs further digging. Wether their beliefs are similar to that of other Christians, you'll be the judge.

[aprilannies]

Is this supposed to nullify the 'reality' of God?

Not at all! Just the infallibility and absolute authority of the Bible.

[Dilettante]

snowman wrote:

Was the book of Mormon ever considered by 'christians'?

To the best of my knowledge, the Book of Mormon was never considered by Christians, if we do not include Mormons (this is controversial) in the Christian label. This is not surprising when we consider that the Book of Mormon (I have read it) is demonstrably a 19th century American product modelled after the King James Bible.