For Further Study
Articles - Confirming Biblical History by Chuck Colson and Defending the Deuterocanonicals (History of the Bible) by James Akin (off site)Books - The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Bloomberg
CD - Can you Trust the Bible? by Scott Hahn and Where Does the Bible Come From?by Father Mitch Pacwa
DVD - What Every Catholic Needs to Know About the Bible
But for starters, I (Marcella Carmen), recommend this brief but clear article by Sebastian R. Fama
The Canon of Scripture
by Sebastian R. Fama
There is a significant difference
between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles contain seven more
books than Protestant Bibles do. The seven books, all in the Old Testament, are
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Catholics call the
disputed books Deuterocanonical and consider them to be inspired. Bible
Christians call them Apocryphal and consider them to be spurious.
The list of books that comprise
the Bible is referred to as the canon. During Jesus' time there were two Old
Testament canons in use. There was the Palestinian canon, which is identical to
the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon – also known as the Septuagint – which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament.
The reason why the Catholic Bible has the longer canon is simple. The Apostles
and the early Church used the Septuagint.
Bible Christians use the shorter canon because it
matches the present day Jewish canon. They will often quote Romans 3:2, which
says, "The Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." They reason
that since God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, they should be the ones
who determine which books belong in it.
This reasoning presents a couple of problems.
Firstly, both Old Testament canons (the Palestinian canon and the Alexandrian
canon) were received from the Jews. Thus neither canon is eliminated by this
verse.
Secondly, the Jews didn't settle on the
Palestinian canon until at least 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. This was well
after authority had passed from the Jews to the Church (Acts 4:19). Ironically
it was at the Council of Jamnia that the Jews also rejected the New Testament.
Logically speaking, anyone who would consider Jamnia as being authoritative
would also have to reject the New Testament.
Most Church Fathers regarded the
Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. When the Councils of
Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the New Testament they
also confirmed the Septuagint as the Old Testament. Further evidence of the
Septuagint's acceptance by the early Church can be found in the New Testament
itself. It quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times. Three hundred of
those quotes are from the Septuagint. Surely this amounts to an overwhelming
endorsement by the early Church.
Some raise objections over
supposed errors. One example is in Judith 1:1-7. Here Nebuchadnezzar is called
the king of Assyria when in fact it is well known that he was the king of Babylon.
But Judith is not a historical book; it's a religious novel. The combining of
the Babylonians and the Assyrians is a representation of the enemies of Israel.
Both had conquered Israel at one time or another. Judith means Jewess and she
represents the whole of Judaism. The lesson of the book is to rely on God's way
of deliverance no matter what the method. Similar objections are raised over
verses in Tobit, which are likewise symbolic and not historical.
Critics will often dismiss the
role of the Church in determining the New Testament. They contend that the Holy
Spirit caused the books of the New Testament to fall into place on their own.
They would have us believe that the Church councils that dealt with the canon
were nothing more than bishops getting together to say "Wow, look at
that." Once again, history tells us another story.
The book of 1 Clement was
considered inspired by most in the early Church (Eusebius, The
History of the Church 3:16, 325 AD). We also know that the book of
Revelation was disputed by many at the time. And yet Revelation made it into
the canon and 1 Clement didn't. That's because the Church set the canon of
Scripture, and she did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as God
worked infallibly through men in writing the Bible, He worked infallibly
through men in communicating exactly which books comprised it.
And so the canon stood. Unchanged until the
Protestant Reformation when Martin Luther threw out the seven Deuterocanonicals
because they contradicted his new doctrines. He also wanted to throw out
Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Fortunately,
cooler heads prevailed.
In Revelation 22:19 the apostle
John proclaims, "If any one takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy
city, which are described in this book." It's true that this verse refers to the book of
Revelation. However, common sense tells us that the same principal should apply
to all of Scripture. Certainly God would never be pleased with us tampering
with any part of His word.
For
Further Study
Articles - Confirming
Biblical History by Chuck Colson and Defending
the Deuterocanonicals (History
of the Bible) by James Akin (off site)
Books - The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Bloomberg
CD - Can you Trust the Bible? by Scott Hahn and Where Does the Bible Come From? by Father Mitch Pacwa
DVD - What Every Catholic Needs to Know About the Bible
Books - The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Bloomberg
CD - Can you Trust the Bible? by Scott Hahn and Where Does the Bible Come From? by Father Mitch Pacwa
DVD - What Every Catholic Needs to Know About the Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment