|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 1
 January 1993 
|
|
|
Saul is to Paul as Simon is to Peter?
Q: Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?
A: He didn't. Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Greek: Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Matt. 16:18, John 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.
Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, "circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee" (Phil. 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by. But after his conversion Saul determined to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he dusted off his Roman name and became known as Paul, a name Gentiles were accustomed to.
Adopting his Roman name was typical of Paul's missionary style. His method was to put people at their ease and to approach them with his message in a language and style they could relate to. We should take a cue from Paul as we engage in apologetics work. No, we don't need to adopt new names, but we should accommodate ourselves to our audiences (and we mean here audiences as small as one person). We want to speak to people in their own styles, so far as we can, and we want to address their particular concerns. We don't want to raise people's hackles before we even have a chance to raise issues.
As Paul explained, "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law - though I myself am not under the law - to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law. To the weak I became weak to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it" (1 Cor. 9:19-23; see also 1 Cor 10:33, Rom.. 15:1).
Q: I recently listened to a debate on sola scriptura between a Catholic apologist and a Baptist who runs an anti-Catholic organization. The Baptist claimed the Catholic Church did not decide the canon of the New Testament at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). As proof he alluded to the Muratorian Fragment, saying that, since it was far older than those councils and since it contains the New Testament canon as we know it, the issue was obviously settled long before the Catholic Church made any decisions. Is it true?
A: The Baptist fellow is wrong and misled the audience. The Muratorian Fragment (so-called because it represents only a portion of the actual second-century document discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), is the oldest extant listing of New Testament-era books revered by early Christians. It was written sometime between 155 and 200. Patristic scholars believe the unknown author originally wrote the list in Greek (since the Latin is very poor), but the oldest copy available is an eighth- century Latin manuscript.
Although the Muratorian Fragment is important in studying how the early Church developed the New Testament canon, it doesn't give exactly the same list of books that was later adopted as canonical at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Muratorian Fragment is just that: a fragment of a larger list of books which were considered canonical or quasi-canonical during the second century.
The Fragment itself provides us with a good, though incomplete idea of this early canon. Virtually the entire New Testament canon as we know it is represented: the Gospels of Luke and John (preceded by what seems to be an allusion to the Gospel of Mark), Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, two letters of John (since the fragment simply says "the two ascribed to John," we don't know which two of his three letters are meant), and Revelation.
The unknown author adds other non-canonical books to this line- up: the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians (about which the Fragment's author expresses his conviction that they were not authored by Paul), the Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon in His Honor, the Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd (written by Hermas). The Fragment's list is cut short abruptly with a final, enigmatic phrase which may indicate that the author had gone on to include still other non- inspired writings: "Those also who wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians."
As you can see, although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired.
These facts demonstrate that, although the Fragment came close, it did not represent the actual canon of inspired Scripture. Further, there is no internal evidence in the document that it sought to represent any kind of official canon that was regarded by the Church as binding.
In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.
It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.
Q: Is a nun who makes her final profession of vows receiving any kind of sacrament by doing so? Is this the equivalent of holy orders? I understand that such nuns, along with brothers and monks, are therefore members of the clergy, just like priests, except that they aren't ordained.
A: Your understanding contains some misunderstandings. Let's see if we can straighten them out quickly. By making a formal, public profession of solemn vows (the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience) a nun promises to live as a consecrated religious for the rest of her life. This taking of vows is not holy orders, which is the reception of the priesthood. Although they live consecrated lives, nuns (or "sisters "), brothers, and those monks who are not ordained as priests (some monks receive ordination, many don't) are all lay people. They are not members of the clergy, and it is not correct for us or for them to refer to them as clergy.
|
[TOP]
