Ecce Fides - Pillar of Truth - St. Patrick's Basilica

into the canon of the Bible until the fourth century—and not without great and fervent debate. For
example, Eusebius, the greatest Church historian of his time, writing around the year 324 AD, points out
that the epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and the epistle to the Hebrews as well as the book of
Revelation were still not accepted as part of the Bible. Amphilochius of Iconium (ca. 340-394) explains:
Now I am to read the books of the New Testament. Accept only four Evangelists, Matthew, then Mark, to
which add Luke. Count John in times as fourth, but first in sublimity of teachings. Son of Thunder, rightly
he is called, who loudly announced the Word of God. Accept from Luke a second book also, that of the
Catholic Acts of the Apostles. Add to these that Vessel of Election, the Herald of the Gentiles, the Apostle
Paul, writing wisely to the churches: One epistle to the Romans, to which must be added two to the
Corinthians, and the one to the Galatians, and that to the Ephesians, after which there is one to the
Philippians, then those written to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians two, two to Timothy, to Titus and to
Philemon, one to each, and to the Hebrews one. Some call that to the Hebrews spurious, but not rightly do
they say it; for the gift is genuine. What then is left? Of the Catholic Epistles some say seven need be
accepted, others only three: One of James, one of Peter, one of John, or three of John and with them, two of
Peter, the seventh that of Jude. The Apocalypse (Revelation) of John is also to be considered.. Some accept,
but most will call it spurious (4).
It was already the fourth century and the structure of the Bible was still being debated.
Things even get more complicated. When we look at the modern day accepted canon of the Bible,
particularly the New Testament, we notice something quite interesting. Open up to any good Protestant
Bible, such as the RSV or the NRSV, or to any good Catholic Bible such as the NAB or the NJB and you
will notice something that might be shocking to many who overlook the introductions to the various New
Testament books. But when we look at them we notice the following: The Gospel of Matthew as we have
it today seems, according to the scholars, not to have been written by the disciple of the Lord, but by a
Greek speaking convert. The Gospel of John, Revelation and the three epistles of John which make up the
Johannine corpus seem to be more the product of a Johannine community than the apostle John. In terms
of St. Paul’s writings, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians seem to have been most likely written by
another writer. One and 2 Timothy and Titus seem to have been written by a disciple of Paul and not by
Paul himself. Hebrews, for a long time attributed to Paul, is now a work whose authorship is completely
unknown. One and 2 Peter seem to have questions regarding Peter as the author. Likewise, the same
problems occur with James and Jude. (It is no coincidence that most modern scholars, as well as the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, refer to “sacred authors” when making reference to the authorship of the
books of the Scriptures.)
The question must be asked: Why do Protestants not go back and look at the books that the Catholic
Church rejected and also look at those books that the Catholic Church accepted into the Bible? This
situation in terms of the formation of the canon of the New Testament has to be deeply troubling for a
Protestant brother or sister. How can the Protestant know that the New Testament is the Word of God if
scholars are capable of proving that the authorship of many of the books of the New Testament is
questionable? Furthermore, how can a Protestant know that the Catholic Church did not overlook an
authentic work of one of the apostles? Maybe there is a treasure waiting out there to be found? If I were a
Protestant, I would be reexamining every book in existence claiming apostolic authenticity. Yet Protestants
do not. Protestants accept the Catholic Church’s Bible, the entire New Testament, on the authority of the
Catholic Church. Given this, the question must be asked: If Protestants accept the Bible as the Catholic
Church has produced it--under the power of the Holy Spirit--why do they not accept the authority of the
Catholic Church in its interpretation of the Bible?
You may think things are getting out of control at this point. Well, just think about this. We have no
original surviving manuscripts of any of the books of the New Testament. They are all copies!
Furthermore, the copies we have are not all the same. In fact, no two copies are exactly alike! Some have
8