- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,698
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
In seeking a fuller understanding of Evangelical Protestant theology, I've been reading Pastor Mark Driscoll's book Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. I understand that Pastor Mark's got some things about him which are controversial, but it seems to me that his theology is pretty mainstream.
One thing that he asserts in his book is that Catholics added books to the Bible. He therefore rejects the Catholic canon.
My understanding (which may or may not be accurate) is that the canon was compiled by the Church when there was only one Church, and that the canon included all of the books which currently comprise the Catholic canon. It was not until Martin Luther that books were removed from the Bible, thus creating what is now the Protestant canon. (And we know that Martin Luther wanted to remove other books as well, including Revelation)
IIRC, the Jewish canon was translated into Greek with the Septuagint being the result. The early Christians, being for the most part Jews, used the Septuagint as their scriptures.
After Christ, the Jews removed books such as the two books of Maccabees, Sirach, etc. from their canon, at the council of Yavneh (aka Jamnia). These books had always had a secondary status, but now were removed from the Jewish canon. (An interesting note here is the fact that although Jews today celebrate Chanukah, the events surrounding that holiday occur nowhere in their own scriptures except in Maccabees, which they removed from their canon! So, only the Catholic canon supports Chanukah.)
My question: All of that being said, how can Protestants assert that "Catholics added books to the Bible" when it seems clear from the historical record that Protestants actually removed books from the Bible?
Please note that what I am saying and asking here is meant in a spirit of peace and hopefully greater knowledge and understanding on my part. It is not my intent to anger or provoke anyone. Thank you.
One thing that he asserts in his book is that Catholics added books to the Bible. He therefore rejects the Catholic canon.
My understanding (which may or may not be accurate) is that the canon was compiled by the Church when there was only one Church, and that the canon included all of the books which currently comprise the Catholic canon. It was not until Martin Luther that books were removed from the Bible, thus creating what is now the Protestant canon. (And we know that Martin Luther wanted to remove other books as well, including Revelation)
IIRC, the Jewish canon was translated into Greek with the Septuagint being the result. The early Christians, being for the most part Jews, used the Septuagint as their scriptures.
After Christ, the Jews removed books such as the two books of Maccabees, Sirach, etc. from their canon, at the council of Yavneh (aka Jamnia). These books had always had a secondary status, but now were removed from the Jewish canon. (An interesting note here is the fact that although Jews today celebrate Chanukah, the events surrounding that holiday occur nowhere in their own scriptures except in Maccabees, which they removed from their canon! So, only the Catholic canon supports Chanukah.)
My question: All of that being said, how can Protestants assert that "Catholics added books to the Bible" when it seems clear from the historical record that Protestants actually removed books from the Bible?
Please note that what I am saying and asking here is meant in a spirit of peace and hopefully greater knowledge and understanding on my part. It is not my intent to anger or provoke anyone. Thank you.