Was the Selection and Ordering of Books in the New Testament Divinely Inspired

[jgarden]

Based on the Gospels, there is no record of Jesus writing any books or letters, and left no instructions about compiling his ministry in written form (contrary to Paul‘s quote). Although most of the books of the New Testament were written during the first and second centuries, it was not until the forth century that a comprehensive biblical canon was produced.

Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, encouraged Pope Eusebius to select and organize the books of the New Testament. The emperor wanted more uniformity and viewed Christianity as a unifying force within the Empire. By the end of the century, canons included most of the 27 books in the current New Testament. The criteria was -

1. written by an apostle
2. Orthodoxy -
3. Antiquity - period during the apostolic ministry
4.Use - were these Scriptures currently in use

The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) made their final determination (by a split vote), while the Protestants later excluded the Apocrypha. If the same criteria were applied TODAY, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude and the Pastorals would have difficulties remaining in the canon (based on authorship). Barnabus, 1 Clement, Ignatius, Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas appear to be of equal importance.

Although we have many different versions of the Bible, we tend to not think about the selection of the books in the New Testament. Should we establish a new cannon and consider deleting and/or adding new books? Do we consider the selection and order of books in the New Testament divinely inspired or an arbitrary decision?

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Revelation clearly states that we are NOT to add or remove anything from the bible. The Apocrypha has NOTHING to do with the old or new testament, thats probably why protestants removed it. The council of nicea rubber stamped it.

What we have is good enough for me.

Remember, the bible is God INSPIRED scripture.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Based on the Gospels, there is no record of Jesus writing any books or letters, and left no instructions about compiling his ministry in written form (contrary to Paul‘s quote). Although most of the books of the New Testament were written during the first and second centuries, it was not until the forth century that a comprehensive biblical canon was produced.

Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, encouraged Pope Eusebius to select and organize the books of the New Testament. The emperor wanted more uniformity and viewed Christianity as a unifying force within the Empire. By the end of the century, canons included most of the 27 books in the current New Testament. The criteria was -

1. written by an apostle
2. Orthodoxy -
3. Antiquity - period during the apostolic ministry
4.Use - were these Scriptures currently in use

Hi jgarden

Actually, this is not entirely accurate.

To say that Constantine encouraged Eusebius to select and organize the books of the New Testament is somewhat misleading.

Emperor Dioceltian had ordered that all Christian scriptures were to be burned. and for about 10 years this edict was in force, and christians watched as their sacred texts were searched out of their homes and burned.

When Constantine stopped persecution of christians, he wanted to replace these texts which had been destroyed, so he requested that Eusebius make 50 copies of those texts that were destroyed.

What is important to note here is that Constantine's commission did not require that Christians decide what the contents of scripture were; it was intended to replace those copies of the scriptures destroyed in the persecution.

What is missing from your summary is that towards the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries, Bishops of the Church met to declare which books should be read at mass as sacred scritpure and pronounced the first canon of scripture. The Council of Hippo being one of these councils.

The Canon being declared by Bishops and Pope during this time period is the same Canon reaffrmed by the Councel of Trent.

The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) made their final determination (by a split vote), while the Protestants later excluded the Apocrypha.

And this also has it a little mixed up.

First, the Council of Trent made no final determination as if the canon was still in doubt. Those determinations had been made by the Church over 1000 years earlier. The Church, in the face of Protestant claims to the contrary, found itself needing to re-establish for the faithful what had alreadh been established in the Early Church, the Canon of Scripture, so the Council of Trent was convened, not to make a final determination, but to REAFFIRM the canon as had been handed down by the Early Church Fathers.

The reason they had to do this was because the Reformers had ALREADY removed 7 books from the Old Testament, and Luther had tried to remove James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament (he didn't succede). Luther was the first to remove the 7 Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament. But he kept them in an appendix. This practice was followed until I believe the 1800's when it disappeared from even Protestant books in this form.

But it is very misleading to suggest that the Catholic Church was in need of making a final determination and then after that Protestants removed books. It was the other way around. Protestants first removed books and then the Catholic Church found that so much confusion resulted from Protestant actions that it had to make a formal declaration to re-establish for the faithful what the true canon of scripture had always been.

If the same criteria were applied TODAY, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude and the Pastorals would have difficulties remaining in the canon (based on authorship). Barnabus, 1 Clement, Ignatius, Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas appear to be of equal importance.

Although we have many different versions of the Bible, we tend to not think about the selection of the books in the New Testament. Should we establish a new cannon and consider deleting and/or adding new books? Do we consider the selection and order of books in the New Testament divinely inspired or an arbitrary decision?

I think that Protestants today are so divorced from what the Early Church believed, taught and practiced that any attempt to ditch the bible and start anew would be highly dangerous for Christian faith among Protestants.


I think that one has to decide if they believe the promises of Jesus given to the disciples .. that the Holy Spirit would lead them in all truth, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. If you do, then it is a matter of faith that the Holy Spirit led these bishops of these councils in the late 4th and early 5th centuries in there declaration of what would be canonical scripture. And there should be no tampering with this, else you say Jesus' promise failed . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Revelation clearly states that we are NOT to add or remove anything from the bible. The Apocrypha has NOTHING to do with the old or new testament, thats probably why protestants removed it. The council of nicea rubber stamped it.

What we have is good enough for me.

Remember, the bible is God INSPIRED scripture.

Then Martin Luther's in trouble . The book of Revelations was referring to that book, only, not the whole NT cannon. If you want to go with that logic then we should not have any book in the NT at all but Revelations.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Revelation clearly states that we are NOT to add or remove anything from the bible. The Apocrypha has NOTHING to do with the old or new testament, thats probably why protestants removed it. The council of nicea rubber stamped it.

What we have is good enough for me.

Remember, the bible is God INSPIRED scripture.

Yet, the same council of bishops in the late 4th and early 5th centuries that gave you the New Testament also gave you the Old Testament books of the Septuagint, which include those 7 deuterocanonical books you think had nothing to do with the Old or New Testtaments. And the Council of Trent simply reaffirmed them after the Protestants took them out of their bibles.

It is good to study Church History, and not a biased version of it. But to read the actual documents themselves.

Also did you know that Martin Luther took out Revelation as well as James, Hebrews and Jude? He was later convinced to put them back, but he did not believe they belonged there. So this great reformer was guilty of doing exactly what you are warning against.


Peace in Him!