How 27 Writings Became The New Testament

[Katholikos]

Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos

[homeschoolmom]

Good post. Thanks.

[XIX]

Okay that's good when debating Protestants.

But say you are debating a non-Christian who goes "Yeah, the Catholic Church just wanted to make themselves look good, so they canonized a Bible that says they are right about everything so that they get more power. Etc. etc. etc."

How do you respond to that?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 12:31 PM']Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]


Yeah, I was thinking over the weekend about Budge's oft-used term, "Bible-believing Christians" in light of the fact that the canon of the Bible wasn't agreed until ~AD 400. Specifically, I wondered what a "Bible-believing Christian" would have been prior to ~AD 400.

[kujo]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 02:31 PM']Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]

Where did this info come from? I'd really like to read more on it and present it to some of my Prot friends.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='XIX' post='1254077' date='Apr 23 2007, 11:19 AM']Okay that's good when debating Protestants.

But say you are debating a non-Christian who goes "Yeah, the Catholic Church just wanted to make themselves look good, so they canonized a Bible that says they are right about everything so that they get more power. Etc. etc. etc."

How do you respond to that?[/quote]

That is a misunderstanding of why and to whom the New Testament was written. It's a [b][i]collection[/i][/b] of writings by Catholics to Catholics, by beleivers to believers. There was no intention of "getting power" or "making themselves look good." The NT is the literary record of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church during the first Christian century.

The Bible is an "insiders" book, produced for members of the Church. It was driven by the need for an authoritative collection. Heretical sects developed, with their own list of sacred books. Christians were persecuted for their faith, and it was important to know which books could be renounced and which could not be handed over to the Roman police without committing sacrilege. The Bible [i](ta biblia - "The Little Books")[/i]consists of the Greek Septuagint OT which was inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, together with 27 of the Church's own writings.

The writings that eventually came to be included in one volume and called the New Testament were written to individuals (Luke, Acts, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 3 John); to particular Churches that had been founded by St. Paul and taught by him personally (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, Thessalonians); to Jewish Christians (Hebrews); to a specific Church community called "the chosen lady and her children" (2 John); to Churches in Asia Minor (1 and probably 2 Peter); and to "the seven Churches in Asia" (Revelation). Matthew, Mark, John, 1 John, James, and Jude were written to the Church in general. All Christians belonged to the Church that was called Catholic in A.D. 107. Again, the NT was not written for an outside audience. You can see this by reading the first few verses in each of the 'books.'

Thanks for your question. If you have more, I'll do my best to answer them. Everybody jump in!

Likos

[Katholikos]

Addendum to my last post:

The contents of the OT and NT were named by the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419). Catholic and Protestant scholars alike usually cite the Council of Carthage (397) as the decisive date for canonization of the Bible. The canon was reiterated by the Council of Florence (1445). The Vulgate, commissoned by Pope Damasus I following the Council of Rome and published in 402, was affirmed at the Council of Trent (1545-63). At all of these councils, the list of canonical Scriptures was the same. The Church has never added to the canon or subtracted from it since it was first set.

However, Luther subtracted eleven books and parts of Daniel and Esther from the canon, four from the NT and seven from the OT. The NT books were restored to the canon by his followers; the OT books were never restored and are missing to this day from Protestant Bibles.

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='kujo' post='1254148' date='Apr 23 2007, 01:11 PM']Where did this info come from? I'd really like to read more on it and present it to some of my Prot friends.[/quote]

I took a two-year course in Bible studies at the graduate level, offered through the University of San Francisco. That's where I first learned it.

I spent some time finding Protestant or neutral sources you could use with your friends.

Here's four:

[url="http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Dev.."]http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/Chur...a%20for%20Dev..[/url].

[url="http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html"]http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html[/url]

[url="http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=53443&display_order=3&sub_display_order=14&mini_id=5342"]http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=5342[/url]

[url="http://www.ntcanon.org/"]http://www.ntcanon.org/[/url]

Let me know if you need more or different websites or if you have any questions.

Likos

[Sojourner]

Thanks for all the info. This is very interesting, Likos. :

[kujo]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1254725' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:29 AM']I took a two-year course in Bible studies at the graduate level, offered through the University of San Francisco. That's where I first learned it.

I spent some time finding Protestant or neutral sources you could use with your friends.

Here's four:

[url="http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Dev."]http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/Chur...a%20for%20Dev.[/url]..

[url="http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html"]http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html[/url]

[url="http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=53443&display_order=3&sub_display_order=14&mini_id=5342"]http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=5342[/url]

[url="http://www.ntcanon.org/"]http://www.ntcanon.org/[/url]

Let me know if you need more or different websites or if you have any questions.

Likos[/quote]

Sweet. The first and third link didn't work, though.

Any good books you recommend? They don't have to "neutral." I'm Catholic...and we're right!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 11:31 AM']So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]

It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church. Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...]. It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed. St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too]. The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history, so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.

Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1254883' date='Apr 24 2007, 02:54 AM']It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church. Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...]. It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed. St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too]. The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history, so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.

Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].

Reza[/quote]

Limbo (for babies) has never been doctrine. Furthermore, it hasn't been overturned as a theological hypothesis yet (although I side with the commission).

Just wanted to add that clarification.

God bless,

Micah

[Katholikos]

I'm so sorry two of the links didn't work. I cut and pasted them directly from their websites last night. But, that's the way it is in computerland.

Google "criteria used for developing the new testament canon"

The first URL listed is a paper written by Corey Keating for a professior at (Protestant) Fuller Theological Seminary. That's the first link I listed (after I printed and read the entire paper).

The seventh URL will connect you to the third link (history) I listed.

Likos

[N/A Gone]

SOmeone get Phatcatholic to attach this to the defense directory

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1254883' date='Apr 24 2007, 03:54 AM']It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church.[/quote]

Hi, Reza,

Sad to say, some are blind to the implications that historical facts have upon their theology. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 13:9).

How about the Byzantine Catholic Church, or the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or any of the 22 Churches (23 counting the Roman rite) that together constitute the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Are they biblical, in your opinion?

Orthodoxy fails to follow the biblical teaching on the primacy of Peter, the Chief of the Apostles and head of the one united, universal (Catholic) and Apostolic Church.

I considered the Orthodox before I became a Catholic. But in addition to the disagreement over who is in charge of the Church, they have caved in on certain moral issues they held firmly to for centuries. I also couldn’t accept the ethnic divisions within Orthodoxy. I had to choose among the autonomous Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Coptic, or other Orthodox Churches. They're too identified and integrated with the governments of those countries, IMHO. The Church needs a center of unity -- the Pope, our Papa, the successor to St. Peter. This is the biblical model of the one unified Church.

[quote]Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...].[/quote]

Condemned? Limbo, which was pure theological speculation and neither doctrine nor Sacred Apostolic Tradition, was not condemnation but a state of perfect natural happiness.

Limbo, as Raphael said, is not now and never was a doctrine. It was the speculation of some theologians. Be careful what you read in the media, who always gets it wrong when reporting the activities of the Catholic Church. Go to an official Catholic source.

[quote]It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed.[/quote]The Church's name is not Roman Catholic. It is simply, the Church. Or, the Catholic Church. Roman is only one of the many rites of the Church.

[quote]St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

Yes, of course. But the original name of these Churches wasn’t Orthodox, was it? And I wouldn’t characterize St. Clement of Alexandria as “the head dude of his time.” He wasn’t head of the universal Church – the successor to St. Peter -- but he was very important in the history of the Church. Here’s what Benedict XVI had to say about him recently, on April 16 of this year:

[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106189"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106189[/url]

[quote]The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too].[/quote]

The Church wrote the NT. The term 'Catholic' was first mentioned in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans c. A.D. 107, who probably learned it from his teachers and mentors, the Apostles: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Notice that Ignatius didn't say, 'there is the Orthodox Church.') Please provide the cites for the rites you mention. I’d be interested in reading them.

[quote]The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church.[/quote]Yes, the Catholic Church certainly acknowledges that the Eastern Churches are her sisters and works diligently for reunification. Pray for the unity of the once undivided Churches! As JPII said, there's plenty of blame on both sides of the Great Schism.

[quote]Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history,[/quote]

I’m glad to know that. Most Protestant I’ve met don’t have a clue, nor did I when I was Protestant.

[quote] so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.[/quote]I refer you to John Henry Newman’s book, [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.[/i] Newman (an Anglican priest) was set on proving that the Catholic Church was not the church of history. When his research and his book were finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and became a Catholic.

[quote]Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].[/quote]

Or the Coptic Catholic Church.

Peace be with you,

Likos