 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 12:52 am |
|
I've been reading up on all the different gospels and letters there were early on in the history of the church. And, there were a lot. How did the early church know which were right? I mean, which did they believe and why? Why did the Church choose the ones it did, and reject the ones it did? I know we could just chalk it all up to God - "God was guiding the Church..." And that would be true, but sometimes that seems like a cop out. I guess I want reasons, proof of a sort, for the ones they chose being the right ones.
And, does the Church accept the protoevangelium of James?
And when were the books in the New Testament written down?
And did Paul for sure write his letters?
I just like to know things for sure and why I know and believe them for sure. Besides, as a historian, this stuff intrigues me. But, it can be so confusing. And exciting, too. I feel freed to honestly look at this stuff and try to understand and make sense of it.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 09:41 am |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: I've been reading up on all the different gospels and letters there were early on in the history of the church. And, there were a lot. How did the early church know which were right? I mean, which did they believe and why? Why did the Church choose the ones it did, and reject the ones it did?
And, does the Church accept the protoevangelium of James?
And when were the books in the New Testament written down?
And did Paul for sure write his letters?
Here are the answers as I know them. By the late 4th century, the canon of Scripture was identified as including all the books found in a Catholic Bible: 27 books in the NT, 46 in the OT. It was not until the Council of Trent, in response to the Reformation, that this was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church, but that simply means that it had no need to be defined in such a way before then. The dogma declared at Trent was the one believed by the Church and preserved at various councils up to the time of Trent. As for how the Church knew they were actually inspired and not just theologically sound, it would be based upon testimony of eyewitnesses and their disciples, but yes, also on the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit. While it is true the Church exercised her authority in listing the books, the Church recognizes them as "sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church" (Dei Filius ch. 2, no. 7).
The Church does not recognize anything outside of the Bible as Sacred Scripture, so no, the Church does not recognize the Protoevangelion of James to be Scripture. In my best estimation, it does recognize the pious and traditional (and possibly historical) nature of the work.
The dates of the books of the New Testament used to be traditionally known until 18th century theologians -- THEOLOGIANS! -- became critical and came up with arguments for later dating -- sometimes much later, calling into question the authorship of the books. I have a lecture on CD by Dr. Timothy O'Donnell (president of Christendom College, a Catholic college in Virginia) wherein he suggests the following dates: Matthew (Aramaic) 42-50, Mark ~60, Matthew (Greek) ~65, Luke ~65. Luke wrote his gospel and Acts, its sequel, and Acts ends its account around 63 AD, which is why Luke's writings were probably "published" by 65 AD. John's gospel is probably much later than that, although some scholars argue for it before 70 AD as well! The letters of Paul were all written before his death in the mid-60s. I'm not sure the Chuch recognizes Paul as the author of the letter to the Hebrews; it is a very different letter stylistically. It does believe Paul to be the author of the other letters attributed to him, as far as I know. It does believe the Apostle John to be the author of his three letters, of James the Lesser (I think) for his letter, of Peter the Apostle for his two letters, and of Jude the Apostle for his letter. Revelation is also acknowledged as by John the Apostle.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 02:09 pm |
|
japhy wrote: I'm not sure the Chuch recognizes Paul as the author of the letter to the Hebrews;
No, it does not. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but it is still considered of apostolic origin and therefore inspired. That is another criteria you missed. All of the books of the New Testament are considered of apostolic origin. That doesn't necessarily mean the apostles (including Paul) wrote them all, but the books reflect their teachings.
We don't know if Paul actually physically sat down with a pen (quill?) in his hand and personally wrote all of his letters. We know he was the source of the content of each letter, but he may have had a close associate actually write it, much as a businessman would have a secretary write a letter for him. Nonetheless, we are assured by the Church that the apostles are the origin of all of the books of the New Testament, whether or not they actually, physically wrote them.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
Ok, you mentioned that unitl the 18th century everyone agreed on these dates, and it wasn't until then that people became "critical." Well, as a historian, and as a student of Latin and ancient Greek, I am trained to always be critical. Also, as a thinking person, I am simply always critical, always wanting to know FOR SURE.
Now, I could just accept the dates you mentioned. And, theologically, I do accept things that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, then, as a protestant I always just accepted the Bible as written in stone, sola scriptura, the correctness of the doctrine I was taught, etc. I just accepted these things, but I don't just accept them anymore.
I guess there are two parts of me here. One part is fine with accepting that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus established, that it's infallible, that the Bible is all written by who it claims to be written by and when the Church says it was, etc. And the thing is, I love the Church so much that, even when I'm critical, I'm not thinking of rejecting the Church or its teachings. But that is all very much a faith matter.
The other part of me wants to get to the bottom of evertything. How do we KNOW that Paul wrote all those letters? Do we have the original letters written back then? How do we know Paul wrote I and II Timothy and Titus, which are in a very different style and with different vocabulary than his other letters? Why do we accept some gospels and not others? It's not like we have the original of anything, or know exactly who wrote them or when for 100% provable sure. I want to KNOW.
Does that make sense? I like everything being neat and tidy, and in my mind, it is. But in reality, it isn't. My faith will always keep it neat and tidy, but my brain longs to know all the particulars and little details.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:49 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: Ok, you mentioned that unitl the 18th century everyone agreed on these dates, and it wasn't until then that people became "critical." Well, as a historian, and as a student of Latin and ancient Greek, I am trained to always be critical. Also, as a thinking person, I am simply always critical, always wanting to know FOR SURE.
Now, I could just accept the dates you mentioned. And, theologically, I do accept things that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, then, as a protestant I always just accepted the Bible as written in stone, sola scriptura, the correctness of the doctrine I was taught, etc. I just accepted these things, but I don't just accept them anymore.
I guess there are two parts of me here. One part is fine with accepting that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus established, that it's infallible, that the Bible is all written by who it claims to be written by and when the Church says it was, etc. And the thing is, I love the Church so much that, even when I'm critical, I'm not thinking of rejecting the Church or its teachings. But that is all very much a faith matter.
The other part of me wants to get to the bottom of evertything. How do we KNOW that Paul wrote all those letters? Do we have the original letters written back then? How do we know Paul wrote I and II Timothy and Titus, which are in a very different style and with different vocabulary than his other letters? Why do we accept some gospels and not others? It's not like we have the original of anything, or know exactly who wrote them or when for 100% provable sure. I want to KNOW.
When I've finished transcribing the lecture (yup, you heard me) I'll send you the portions relevant to dating the Gospels and why we have historical assurance of their validity. As for Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, perhaps Paul really did have (as many of us do, I'm sure) a different tone and style when addressing a single close friend than when addressing a congregation.
And part of faith is hoping for what is unseen. The very early Church didn't have the "problem" we have today. Perhaps that is why the Holy Spirit moved St. John to record the words of our Lord to St. Thomas, because there were Christians who were doubting the truth of the Gospel. "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." (John 20:29)
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Current time is 09:08 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
