Who Chose the Books of the Bible? Are the Books “Self-authenticating”?
Feb 5, 2019 16:37:50 #
01/08/2018 Who Chose the Books of the Bible? Are the Books “Self-authenticating”?
Are the Books of the New Testament “Self-Authenticating” or was the Catholic Church Necessary to Define the Canon of Scripture?
Steve Ray
a. https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2019/01/08/who-chose-the-books-of-the-bible-are-the-books-self-authenticating/
b. https://www.catholicconvert.com
6. The sixth are newspapers and periodicals.
This one is interesting and may be the closest to the historical situation in the first century in which documents were being passed freely around.
The (Endnote 6) that points #6 states,“The likelihood of forgery of newspapers or periodicals is slight indeed. Hence, no danger is apparent in receiving them.”
However, we know from the first centuries that the attempt to forge or pass documents off as apostolic was a real problem.
With over one hundred and fifty documents from the first two centuries that we know of, circulating under the name of an apostle or the claim of apostolic authorship, the rules of evidence would have had to be much more stringent.
Since none of the autographs (original apostolic writings) exist, all we have are copies and they could have been easily tampered with early on as is evident from the various endings for the gospel of Mark and other variant readings and alterations in many New Testament passages.
We know Paul was protective of his writings because he understood the attempts that others would make to alter his epistles or forge documents in his name.
(1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philem 19).
(Endnote 4)
In 2 Thessalonians 2:2
Paul is concerned with forgeries, epistles written in his name.
He writes, “We beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
Remember that there are no autographs of New Testament documents.
We do not have the luxury of knowing Paul’s distinctive handwriting in his original autograph.
We have only imperfect, handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies. . .
7. Point #7 covers trade inscriptions;
8. Point #8 acknowledged documents which again must be accompanied “by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments.”
9. Point Finally, #9 concerns Commercial paper and related documents and
#10 Presumptions under Acts of Congress. It covers “any signature, documents, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima fascia genuine or authentic.”
Actually this is very close to what the Catholic would say:
“How do we know this is genuine?”
“Because of an act or determination of the Magisterium (Catholic Teaching Office).”
In looking over the Federal Rules of Evidence it seems the sacred books—what you base your eternal hopes and sole source of revelation upon—would fare quite badly and be in real trouble.
Would an objective judge today admit them as authentic apostolic writings, sacred text, divinely written, self-authenticating, for a final draft of the canon . . .
Without an original autograph, with only flawed copies extant, without a purported signature, without an official seal of some sort, without the possibility of collaborative sources, with disputed authenticity or authorship, etc.?
I doubt it.
Most New Testament documents don’t have declared authors, none are certified within reason to be self-authenticating, and some are known to be written by a non-apostle or by someone unknown.
A really interesting case. And, when we consider the import of
Page 3
the decision, a split decision or mistrial would not be very comforting or “faith-building”— certainly not a strong evangelistic tool.
If we are to die for a document, or a collection of documents, as many early Christians were wont to do, we want to know it is authentic and infallible, without reasonable doubt.
If we are to base our eternal destiny on it, and that of our children—heaven or hell—we want to be without a doubt that the component parts that are in our possession are authentic, inspired, and infallible.
We also want the component parts to be collected into a closed canon that is also authentic, inspired and infallible—so that we know we have the words of Christ and his apostles.
Protestant methodology, if I had been honest several years ago, or had known the real situation, would have driven me close to agnosticism.
With the above criteria (the Federal Rules) for positive identification of infallible books, a few books might possibly make it in a Federal court, but most would not.
Let’s look at what we actually have:
[Only a few New Testament documents reveal their author (Paul’s epistles, James [which one?], Peter, Jude, and the Revelation of John [which John?]).
Both letters to Thessalonians purport to be written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.
Others purport to be co-written by Sosthenes, Timothy, and Tertius.
(I add “purport” to make a point, not to doubt the authorship.)
The authorship of the “unsigned” documents is determined in most cases by Church tradition and speculation based on internal evidence, e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and the Epistles of John.
[ A few claim apostolic authorship (Paul’s [though he was not one of the Twelve Jesus commissioned and we don’t have all his writings], Peter, James possibly, and with many challenges in the past, Revelation), but a claim can be challenged and it has been, especially in regards to the Revelation.
[ Others are written by Apostles, assumed on the basis of Church tradition (e.g., Matthew, John).
[ Some are clearly not written by an apostle or one who knew Christ (Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude [Jude 17], and Hebrews (Heb 2:3), and maybe others.
[ The authorship of others is uncertain and still challenged by scholars, just as they were questioned in the first centuries (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, and others).
C. Correct Criterion vs. Circular Reasoning:
A criterion is a test or some recognized principle by which we can determine the correctness of a conclusion or judgment.
Accordingly, the criterion of inspiration is the test or principle by which we distinguish inspired books from non-inspired books.
Such biblical criteria should have various requisites:
It should by its very nature be apt to bear witness to the fact of inspiration;
It should be universally applicable to only and all the inspired books without exception;
c. It should be universally adapted to the capacity of all men, since there is a question of something that must be believed;
d. It should be infallibly true.
Page 4
Such criteria are necessary, because the inspiration of the Bible is a dogma of the Church, accepted by all believers, and on the basis of such a criterion we must make an act of divine faith.
A lot rests on the foundation of an inspired canon and such a requirement of faith would require a sure foundation.
But instead of these certain criteria, we have an inadequate explanation from Evangelicals.
I attempted to find a good defense of the self-authentication theory.
One of the best popular books on the scriptural questions is God’s Inerrant Word edited by John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1974)
Based upon a Conference on the Inspiration and Authority of Scriptures conducted at Ligonier in 1973.
The contributors were Montgomery, Packer, Gerstner, Pinnock, Frame, Jones, and Sproul.
The chapter dealing with establishing the canon and its self-authentication is written by John M. Frame and entitled Scripture Speaks for Itself.
In this chapter, which is very poorly done, by the way, Frame writes;
“The authority of Scripture is a doctrine of the Christian faith—a doctrine like other doctrines—like the deity of Christ, justification by faith, sacrificial atonement.
a. To prove such doctrines, Christians go to Scripture.
b. Where else can we find information on God’s redemptive purposes?
c. But what of the doctrine of the authority of Scripture?
d. Must we not, to be consistent, also prove that doctrine by Scripture?
e. If so, then the self-witness of Scripture must not only be the first
consideration in the argument;
f. It must be the final and decisive consideration also.”
(pg. 178)
It is one thing to prove a doctrine from a book that is proven authoritative.
It is quite another thing to prove the authority of a book, from that book, before the book itself is proven authoritative.
These two are very different situations.
This is circular reasoning and gets us nowhere.
It is even worse when we realize that the book (New Testament) is made up of twenty-seven component parts and was not a “unit” or canon for over three centuries.
So, the Bible must not only prove that it is itself, in its present form, inspired and infallible, but it must also make that proof for each of the individual component parts.
Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture or Protestant theology.
Are the Books of the New Testament “Self-Authenticating” or was the Catholic Church Necessary to Define the Canon of Scripture?
Steve Ray
a. https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2019/01/08/who-chose-the-books-of-the-bible-are-the-books-self-authenticating/
b. https://www.catholicconvert.com
6. The sixth are newspapers and periodicals.
This one is interesting and may be the closest to the historical situation in the first century in which documents were being passed freely around.
The (Endnote 6) that points #6 states,“The likelihood of forgery of newspapers or periodicals is slight indeed. Hence, no danger is apparent in receiving them.”
However, we know from the first centuries that the attempt to forge or pass documents off as apostolic was a real problem.
With over one hundred and fifty documents from the first two centuries that we know of, circulating under the name of an apostle or the claim of apostolic authorship, the rules of evidence would have had to be much more stringent.
Since none of the autographs (original apostolic writings) exist, all we have are copies and they could have been easily tampered with early on as is evident from the various endings for the gospel of Mark and other variant readings and alterations in many New Testament passages.
We know Paul was protective of his writings because he understood the attempts that others would make to alter his epistles or forge documents in his name.
(1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philem 19).
(Endnote 4)
In 2 Thessalonians 2:2
Paul is concerned with forgeries, epistles written in his name.
He writes, “We beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
Remember that there are no autographs of New Testament documents.
We do not have the luxury of knowing Paul’s distinctive handwriting in his original autograph.
We have only imperfect, handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies. . .
7. Point #7 covers trade inscriptions;
8. Point #8 acknowledged documents which again must be accompanied “by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments.”
9. Point Finally, #9 concerns Commercial paper and related documents and
#10 Presumptions under Acts of Congress. It covers “any signature, documents, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima fascia genuine or authentic.”
Actually this is very close to what the Catholic would say:
“How do we know this is genuine?”
“Because of an act or determination of the Magisterium (Catholic Teaching Office).”
In looking over the Federal Rules of Evidence it seems the sacred books—what you base your eternal hopes and sole source of revelation upon—would fare quite badly and be in real trouble.
Would an objective judge today admit them as authentic apostolic writings, sacred text, divinely written, self-authenticating, for a final draft of the canon . . .
Without an original autograph, with only flawed copies extant, without a purported signature, without an official seal of some sort, without the possibility of collaborative sources, with disputed authenticity or authorship, etc.?
I doubt it.
Most New Testament documents don’t have declared authors, none are certified within reason to be self-authenticating, and some are known to be written by a non-apostle or by someone unknown.
A really interesting case. And, when we consider the import of
Page 3
the decision, a split decision or mistrial would not be very comforting or “faith-building”— certainly not a strong evangelistic tool.
If we are to die for a document, or a collection of documents, as many early Christians were wont to do, we want to know it is authentic and infallible, without reasonable doubt.
If we are to base our eternal destiny on it, and that of our children—heaven or hell—we want to be without a doubt that the component parts that are in our possession are authentic, inspired, and infallible.
We also want the component parts to be collected into a closed canon that is also authentic, inspired and infallible—so that we know we have the words of Christ and his apostles.
Protestant methodology, if I had been honest several years ago, or had known the real situation, would have driven me close to agnosticism.
With the above criteria (the Federal Rules) for positive identification of infallible books, a few books might possibly make it in a Federal court, but most would not.
Let’s look at what we actually have:
[Only a few New Testament documents reveal their author (Paul’s epistles, James [which one?], Peter, Jude, and the Revelation of John [which John?]).
Both letters to Thessalonians purport to be written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.
Others purport to be co-written by Sosthenes, Timothy, and Tertius.
(I add “purport” to make a point, not to doubt the authorship.)
The authorship of the “unsigned” documents is determined in most cases by Church tradition and speculation based on internal evidence, e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and the Epistles of John.
[ A few claim apostolic authorship (Paul’s [though he was not one of the Twelve Jesus commissioned and we don’t have all his writings], Peter, James possibly, and with many challenges in the past, Revelation), but a claim can be challenged and it has been, especially in regards to the Revelation.
[ Others are written by Apostles, assumed on the basis of Church tradition (e.g., Matthew, John).
[ Some are clearly not written by an apostle or one who knew Christ (Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude [Jude 17], and Hebrews (Heb 2:3), and maybe others.
[ The authorship of others is uncertain and still challenged by scholars, just as they were questioned in the first centuries (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, and others).
C. Correct Criterion vs. Circular Reasoning:
A criterion is a test or some recognized principle by which we can determine the correctness of a conclusion or judgment.
Accordingly, the criterion of inspiration is the test or principle by which we distinguish inspired books from non-inspired books.
Such biblical criteria should have various requisites:
It should by its very nature be apt to bear witness to the fact of inspiration;
It should be universally applicable to only and all the inspired books without exception;
c. It should be universally adapted to the capacity of all men, since there is a question of something that must be believed;
d. It should be infallibly true.
Page 4
Such criteria are necessary, because the inspiration of the Bible is a dogma of the Church, accepted by all believers, and on the basis of such a criterion we must make an act of divine faith.
A lot rests on the foundation of an inspired canon and such a requirement of faith would require a sure foundation.
But instead of these certain criteria, we have an inadequate explanation from Evangelicals.
I attempted to find a good defense of the self-authentication theory.
One of the best popular books on the scriptural questions is God’s Inerrant Word edited by John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1974)
Based upon a Conference on the Inspiration and Authority of Scriptures conducted at Ligonier in 1973.
The contributors were Montgomery, Packer, Gerstner, Pinnock, Frame, Jones, and Sproul.
The chapter dealing with establishing the canon and its self-authentication is written by John M. Frame and entitled Scripture Speaks for Itself.
In this chapter, which is very poorly done, by the way, Frame writes;
“The authority of Scripture is a doctrine of the Christian faith—a doctrine like other doctrines—like the deity of Christ, justification by faith, sacrificial atonement.
a. To prove such doctrines, Christians go to Scripture.
b. Where else can we find information on God’s redemptive purposes?
c. But what of the doctrine of the authority of Scripture?
d. Must we not, to be consistent, also prove that doctrine by Scripture?
e. If so, then the self-witness of Scripture must not only be the first
consideration in the argument;
f. It must be the final and decisive consideration also.”
(pg. 178)
It is one thing to prove a doctrine from a book that is proven authoritative.
It is quite another thing to prove the authority of a book, from that book, before the book itself is proven authoritative.
These two are very different situations.
This is circular reasoning and gets us nowhere.
It is even worse when we realize that the book (New Testament) is made up of twenty-seven component parts and was not a “unit” or canon for over three centuries.
So, the Bible must not only prove that it is itself, in its present form, inspired and infallible, but it must also make that proof for each of the individual component parts.
Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture or Protestant theology.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.