I would add a discussion of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament to make this more complete. The differences in the canon have to do with the different sources. The Protestant reformers used the Masoretic Text as their basis for the Old Testament while the Catholic and Orthodox, for the most part, took the Septuagint Text. The Masoretic Text is a Hebrew language version of the Old Testament, whose final form did not appear till about 800 AD(!). The number of books in the Old Testament were established by the Jewish community at the Council of Jamnia, in the late 1st Century AD, already after the initial break with Christianity. This is called the Palestinian Canon. The Rabbis making such a decision excluded anything not originally written in Hebrew.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation from a Hebrew text of the Old Testament with the inclusion of certain books written only in Greek. It came about between the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC and was used by the Jewish people in the diaspora, who for the most part spoke Greek. These books would later be recognized as the Alexandrian Canon. They were not simply a Greek translation of the Masoretic Text. Recent biblical scholarship (especially the Quram manuscripts) has uncovered a previous Hebrew text, different than the Masoretic text, from which the Jews is the diaspora translated the Old Testament into Greek. It is that version of the Old Testament that is quoted in the New Testament.

Some, including myself, have asked whether the differences in the Masoretic text and the underlying Hebrew that was translated into the Septuagint were not due to specific anti-Christian manipulation of the Masoretic Text on the part of the Jewish community. It has been noted that after the 2nd century AD the Jewish community in the diaspora stopped using the Septuagint. Perhaps this was a reaction to the Christian use of it and its clearer connection to Jesus as the Messiah.

I just wanted to give you a heads up that I referenced your post (here)

God be with you,
Dan

“We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: ‘mentally ill.”

The Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have infallibility on everything, just on the teachings of faith and morality.

“The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium.”

Now I’m no scholar, but if the Bible is the infallible word of God, and 1 Timothy 3:15 states “The Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” would that not argue that a particular church has that “infallible teaching magisterium”? Since as you pointed out in an earlier post the whole Peter and the Keys episode in Matthew Jesus said he would found his church on Peter and his Apostles would it not be reasonable to conclude that such infallible evidence exists?

“The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.”

How about a degree of probablity of 100%? To accept any degree of fallibility is to make Scripture less than the Word of God, and opens up all sorts of issues such as how do you know that the Book of Mormon or “The Da Vinci Code” aren’t the truth? after all, they probably aren’t, but there is no way for us to know for sure. Everything becomes purely subjective at that point. We can pick and choose what suits us, rather that doing the will of God.

With Christian charity,
Tom

But as Michael pointed out that is the fundamental issue facing both protestantism and catholicism. First you have to explain to that girl that the catholic church is probably right. Then you have to say therefore what they say is true.

So how is it that you do escape this problem? What you see as a problem is your first hurdle.

Jeff

I love the line about “mentally ill” and “What about Bob?” with Bill Murray.

You said much better what I have been trying to say to Roman Catholics at Dave Armstrong’s website.

God does not expect us to have “infallible certainty” – we are human. But the RC apologetic approach is to constantly ask:

How do you know Matthew or Philemon or Jude or Revelation belongs in the canon? How do you know for sure?

They also ask, “how do you know for sure you have the right interpretation?”

That is the RCC apologetic approach and you have done a great job of exposing its problems.

Thanks for a great article and series. I love your charts and diagrams also. Very pleasing to the eyes.

Pope Benedict says you cannot put a question mark in the center of your life. A lack of trust in God’s truth leads to functional atheism. You don’t deny God but end up making most decisions the same way you would if you were an atheist.

The other comment I would make on you diagram is that it does not start where it needs to start. It should start with Christ. Catholics can see clearly how Jesus started the church. Protestants cannot show as clearly how Jesus produced the scriptures. So protestants need a bunch more boxes to get from faith in Jesus to a 66 book cannon.