Hello Michah,

Thank you for your question(s). 

First of all, textual criticism is a relatively new science and so-called scholars often disagree about authorship. For example, many don't believe the Gospels were actually written by the authors we traditionally attribute the Gospel to.  Likewise, these same scholars call into question who wrote virtually all the Pauline Epistles.

Textual Criticism/the Historical-Critical method, or the Hysterical/Critical Method as I often refer to it at times, has been around for less than 150 years, give or take a few years. So if anything, it is simply a scientific method of confirming what the Church decided in Councils, 1,500 years earlier. Oftentimes, the Historical "Scholars" contradict the witness of the early Church Fathers with respect to the authorship of certain books.

The Canon was debated for close to four centuries, with many Eastern Churches rejecting several works of John, including Revelation.

For instance, the Armenian Apostolic Church, which went into schism circa 451 A.D., does not have the Book of Revelation in their Lectionary, even though the Canon of 73 Books was canonized in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome, and later reaffirmed by the Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage between 390 and 419 A.D.   The Armenians eventually accepted it as canonical, but their lectionary predates their acceptance of the Canon.

Various local Churches also included books that were ultimately rejected. Books like the Epistles of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas were included in some local Church Canons.  But the Church in various Councils, relying on Apostolic Tradition, gave us the current Canon of 73 Books in 382 A.D., at the Council of Rome. They did so without the "benefit" of textual criticism.  

So according to your interlocutor's claim, we can know what the canon is by using the Historical-Critical Method. This means that for 1,900 or so years when the methodology came to be, we could not be sure of the Canon.

• Does that mean the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage just happened to guess right? 

So, He's saying Jesus left His Church without a definitive Canon for 1,900 some-odd years, during which time He intended all believers, most of whom could not read, to discern doctrine on their own, without knowing for sure what books were canonical. Then 1,900 some-odd years later, modern critical scholars happen to come up with the same exact New Testament Canon, that the Church discerned using Sacred Tradition 1,500 years later.  Wow.  Those Church Council Fathers were pretty good at guessing. Too bad they weren't still around. I'd ask them to give me the Mega Millions Number for next week! 

This leads me to discuss the Old Testament. Protestants have an abridged Old Testament, as Martin Luther tossed out seven books from the Old Testament on the pretext that they weren't originally written in Hebrew, rather the only copies were in Greek.  Luther was looking for an excuse to throw out Second Maccabees because it explicitly teaches prayer for the faithful departed and that the faithful departed can pray for us. (2 Maccabees 12:39-45) So, he used the pretext that the Jews rejected these books. The problem is that Jews rejected them for a totally different reason. They were written in Greek, and there were no Hebrew Manuscripts available. Since then, I believe some Aramaic/Hebrew fragments of those books have been discovered, but I'm not 100% sure of that. But the Jews rejected those books, in particular Maccabees, because they paint the Romans, who helped them get rid of the Greeks, in a good light.

Well, the Jews allegedly ratified their canon in 90 A.D. at a Council of Jamnia. (although some scholars now doubt if that Council of Jews ever took place.) They rejected those books for political reasons. Rome had just destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple 20 years earlier. They weren't going to include books that painted the Romans as good guys. That said, Jews pray for their faithful departed and believe the faithful departed can pray for the living. So they didn't reject the doctrine taught in those books. Rather they were trying to preserve their "Jewishness," so they only accepted books written in Hebrew and Aramaic . . . and again, there were political reasons. Further, by 90 A.D., the authority of Jews to "Bind and Loose" (see Matthew 16 and Matthew 18) was given to the Apostles and taken from Jewish Leadership. "Binding and Loosing" was a Rabbinic expression that meant to discern and define a doctrine.  This Council of Jamnia also rejected all the New Testament writings. Remember, in the first century, the early Church was made up of Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah.  So if we are to use the Council of Jamnia as our standard, we have to toss out the entire New Testament.

It gets even dicier when we look at the Old Testament accepted by other Churches with valid Apostolic Succession. They have even more books.

The Ethiopian Church includes the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and Josippon (which are parts of the work of the Roman Historian, Josephus). The Ethiopian New Testament includes other books too. They have 31 books, not 27.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has books like 3rd and 4th Maccabees. They added these books in 1642 at the Council of Jassy. Just as the Catholic Church responded to Luther at the Council of Trent, by reasserting the 46 books of the Old Testament, the Orthodox responded by actually canonizing some additional books from a different Septuagint Canon.

Since they use a different Greek Manuscript, some of the commonly accepted Old Testament books have additional narratives. I believe this is the case in the book of Judges. 

So, let's look at your friend's logic. He relies on "modern scholarship" that is less than 200 years old to provide him with an infallible or inerrant Canon. So he is still relying on a source outside the Bible to tell him what the Bible is. So, he has to believe that these scholars are infallible.   Then he explains why God waited for 1,900-some-odd years to tell us what books belong in the Bible. So your friend is relying on the infallibility of modern biblical scholars, many of whom aren't even believers, and deny that prophecy was written before the fact. Rather they insist it was written after the fact. And he can't have it both ways. Because most Fundamentalist/Evangelicals reject many of the claims of these same scholars:

• with respect to authorship
• with respect to historicity of the Gospels,
• and so forth.

So, he wants to cherry-pick what some of these scholars have to say.

Now all this boils down to the Protestant heresy of "Sola Scriptura".  Even if the Lord gave the Apostle John an inspired list of books to include in the book of Revelation, and the Bible itself provided us with an inspired Canon, nowhere in the Bible "anywhere", does it teach us that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith. The best they can come up with is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

Nowhere does this text tell us that Scripture Alone is entirely sufficient.  And if it does say that, then we have a problem. It says too much.  Look at the prior verses:

Timothy was a Jew. He was schooled in the Scriptures.

• But what Scriptures?

The Old Testament!  Yes, this is a very late letter of Paul's but when Paul wrote it, we didn't have a Canon of the New Testament. Paul didn't know this letter or if any of his letters would be included in a Canon of Scripture. So, if this verse says "Scripture Alone" is sufficient, then Paul must be talking about the Old Testament Alone. 

• But what does Paul say is really the final authority?

Let's look at his first letter to Timothy.

Hmm . . . Paul writes to the same person and says the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the Church.

But let's look at what else Paul had to say when he wrote to the Thessalonians:

So Paul tells us in this verse that they obey both written and oral traditions. He's not talking about rabbinic traditions that contradict God's Law and Word. Rather, Sacred Tradition comes to us in Scripture and in the Living Tradition of the Church, which includes the Scriptures and, indeed, the Canon itself. 

So to recap, your friend is relying on scholarship that's less than 200 years old, I guess believing that they are infallible, to tell him what books belong in the Bible.  Likewise, he has to reconcile the fact that many of these "scholars":

• the historicity of the Gospels
• the authorship of most of the Pauline Epistles, and
• the authorship of the Gospels. 

Many of them aren't believers and discount the miracles recorded both in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. They believe the prophecies written in the Old Testament were post hoc (written after the fact).

• Then he has to explain why God would leave us without knowledge of what Books belong in the Bible, and therefore the ability to know His Will, for some 1,900 years?
• Further, how on earth did the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage discern the exact same New Testament Canon that these modern scholars came up with, 1,400 years prior, without the benefit of the Historical-Critical Method?

That just doesn't make sense. The Canon of Scripture was discerned by the Church, based on Apostolic Tradition.

And your friend is relying on the work of scholars to tell him what the Canon is, but if he looked at many of their other assertions, he would reject them prima facie.

As Catholics, we appreciate "some" work of many modern scholars. But they certainly aren't infallible. Some of them are downright nuts! I wonder if your friend would embrace their scholarship when these same people reject miraculous events like:

• the parting of the Red Sea
• the walls of Jericho falling at the sound of the Hebrew Trumpets, and so forth.

Yet somehow, these same guys were led by the Holy Spirit to discern the Holy Canon of Scriptures.

I hope this helps,

John DiMascio