Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic)
The following excerpts are pulled from the Internet. Their full articles are worth reading, if you want to understand their thought. In hopes of keeping this at a digestible meal, I've quoted the sections I found most interesting - and deleted a great deal of good reading!
First, the Orthodox: taken from the Orthodox Christian Information Center.
The Emergence of the New Testament Canon by Daniel F. Lieuwen
Link: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx
...When the church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as scripture. The first book written was probably I Thessalonians (c. 51) (or possibly Galations which may be c. 50-there is some controversy over the dating of Galatians). The last books were probably John, the Johannine epistles, and Revelations toward the end of the first century.(1) The books were written to deal with concrete problems in the church-immoral behavior, bad theology, and the need for spiritual "meat".
Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately widely available. Some books like II Peter were read almost exclusively in their target area, a situation which continued for a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Thus, for instance, II Peter was rejected for centuries by many, and it is rejected by Nestorians to this day.(2) Even if not universally accepted, a book was highly regarded by its recipients and those church's in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, a book being used in public worship in a particular region. Twenty-seven of these books came in time to have universal canonicity, but others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian reading.(3)
Although the New Testament books we have today were written in the first century, it took time for them to be accepted as universally authoritative. Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures. For instance, Hegessipus in the first half of the second century accepted only "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" as norms "to which a right faith must conform"(4) The Didascalia Apostolurum which appears to have been written in the first half of the third century in Northern Syria similarly states the authoritative norms are "the sacred scriptures and the gospel of God" (which it also refers to as "the Law, the book of the Kings and of the Prophets, and the Gospel" and the "Law, Prophet, and Gospel").(5)
Moreover, the "Gospel" spoken of was often the Oral Gospel and not exclusively the four Gospels we have in our current Bible. There were also many apocryphal gospels written between the late first and early third centuries. Some of them appear to accurately preserve some of Christ's sayings and were long used in Christian circles (for instance, Eusebius (c. 325) writes that the Gospel of the Hebrews was still in use although not widely accepted); others were written to support some heretical sect.(6) While use was made of the four Gospels, in the first one and a half centuries of the Church's history, there was no single Gospel writing which is directly made known, named, or in any way given prominence by quotation. Written and oral traditions run side by side or cross, enrich or distort one another without distinction or even the possibility of distinction between them.(7)
The reason for this is that the authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form. As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.(8) Many early Christians, in fact, had a preference for oral tradition. For instance, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what "Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice." However, he does mention the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew by name.(9) Early Christian preference for oral tradition had rabbinic parallels-for instance Philo thought oral tradition was superior to scripture. In Semitic thought, the idea persisted for a long time. As late as the thirteenth century, Arab historian Abu-el-Quasim ibn `Askir said, "My friend strive zealously and without ceasing to get hold of [traditions]. Do not take them from written records, so they may not be touched by the disease of textual corruption."(10)
St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), Bishop of Lyons and a great fighter against heresy, was the last writer to use the Oral Gospel as an independent source. He initially fought heresy using only the Old Testament and the church's Oral tradition. However, later, in response to needs arising from fighting Gnosticism and Marcionism, he came to use the books of New Testament extensively.(11)
Besides the Oral Gospels, the Diatessaron served as an alternate Gospel. The Diatessaron was a harmony of the four gospels, written c. 150-160 by Tatian. It circulated widely in Syriac-speaking churches-it was their standard text of the gospels until it was superseded by the Peshitta in the fifth century. The Diatessaron's use shows that the four gospels were considered important authorities, but not exclusive authorities. The Diatessaron by itself constituted as the New Testament scriptures for the Syrian churches until the fourteen Pauline epistles were added in the third century.(12)...
...The Pauline letters achieved acceptance in a fixed form considerably earlier; they were circulating as a body of writing "well before AD 90."(13) In fact, recent research makes it quite likely that p46, an early collection of Pauline letters should be dated in the late first century.(14) The letters were known and circulated among both orthodox and heretics as a collection from the early second century. The collection probably contained ten Pauline letters: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and Philemon.(15)
The first person to attempt to define the canon precisely was the heretic Marcion...
...However, Marcion was not satisfied with accepting the eleven books of his canon in the form he received them. He was convinced that they had been interpolated with "judaising" material. He set out to reconstruct the original, uncorrupted text, free from all distortions.(19) His mind was too narrow and his ideology too rigid to conceive that there were multiple perspectives on the same truths in St. Paul, that God's Law and Grace while contrasted were not put into opposition-although God's Law and man's laws were. He eliminated all but one perspective from his Gospel and Epistles. This perspective, however, was not St. Paul's, but Marcion's. However, it should be noted that he only subtracted, he never added to the texts he received.(20)...
...In responce to Marcion's canon, the expansion phase of the New Testament canon began...
...St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), the preeminent apologist of the early church and a vigorous opponent of Gnosticism including Marcionism,(22) was unwilling to accept Marcion's truncated canon. He "quoted freely from" the four canonical gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles including Hebrews, and I Peter.(23) However, he does not speak of a canon-for instance he was apparently unacquainted with treating the four church gospels as a unit.(24)
St. Irenaeus, who was previously mentioned in connection with the Oral Gospel, produced the first known catholic canon. He was the first to adopt Marcion's notion of a new scripture. He used this idea to fight heresies, including Marcion's. He recognized the four gospel canon as an already established entity and championed it as "an indispensable and recognized collection against all deviations of heretics."(25) Thus, sometime in the last half of the second century, the four church gospels began to be viewed as a single unit...He defended Acts by pointing out that it is illogical to accept St. Luke's gospel and reject Acts (as the Marcionites did). The Pauline letters needed no defense as even the heretics acknowledged them as authoritative.(26)...
...The expansion phase considerable enlarged the accepted canon. It reached near final form in many quarters by around 200, containing the four gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. The main books disputed after that time were: Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude).(32)...
While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John's Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John).(40) In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius.(41)
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), the most influential Biblical commentator of the first three centuries of Christianity, categorized books into three categories: those acknowledged by all the churches, the disputed books which some churches accepted, and the spurious books. The acknowledged books were the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. The disputed books were II Peter, II John, III John, James, and Jude.(42) He may have considered Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd canonical as well-he used the word "scripture" for them. Both Bruce and von Campenhausen indicate that Origen did view them as canonical (although, Origen became more cautious about both Revelation and the Shepherd in later life), while Davis states that even though Origen used the word "scripture" for them, Origen "did not consider them canonical."(43)...
...The final form of the canon was nearly at hand. Emperor Constantine's order for fifty copies of scripture may have been important in the process. While their exact contents are not certain, some surmise that these copies may have contained the 27 books of the final New testament canon.(48) The canons of the council of Laodicia (c. 363) accepted all the books of the final canon except Revelation.(49)...
...The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the canon, and it accepted the 27 book canon, allowing only them to be read in church under the name of canonical writings. It "permitted, however, that the passions of martyrs, be read when their [martyrdoms'] anniversaries are celebrated."(55)...
...The complexity of the process demonstrates that we can know that all and only those books that belonged in the canon are in fact in the canon only because we know that God is faithful, that He will give us all that is necessary for salvation, that He promised to protect His Church so that the gates of hell will be impotent to prevail against her. If, however, we accept that He led the Church aright in the matter of preserving the apostolic teachings, it seems logical that He must have preserved His bride from errors in other matters as well. The myth of the Church abandoning its Master's precepts shortly after the apostolic age or after the beginning of the Constantinian era must be abandoned by those who wish to affirm the New Testament scripture for those scriptures were recognized by that church...
Much more is worth reading in this article - see the link.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now a Protestant. I originally planned to quote F.F. Bruce, but I thought this article (only a fraction is quoted below) provided a broader view. To save space, I deleted a lot of historical review, which repeats much of what is discussed in the previous article...
Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament by M. James Sawyer
Link: http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament
I start my excerpt about half way thru, at "The Development of the New Testament Canon"
...The common evangelical view of the development of the New Testament canon sees the canon as having arisen gradually and through usage rather than through conciliar pronouncement which vested the books of the New Testament with some kind of authority. Athanasius' festal letter (A.D. 367) is generally viewed as the document which fixed the canon in the East, and the decision of the Council of Carthage in the West is viewed as having fixed the Latin canon. Youngblood summarizes this position in his recent Christianity Today article,
The earliest known recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament as alone canonical, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be subtracted, is the list preserved by Athanasius (A.D. 367). The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397) duly acquiesced, again probably under the influence of the redoubtable Augustine.41
The closing of the two canons and their amalgamation into one are historical watersheds that it would be presumptuous to disturb. 42
Evangelicals insist upon the primacy of the written documents of Scripture over and against all human authority. However, in so doing we tend to overlook the fact that other authority did in fact exist in the ancient church, particularly the authority of Jesus Christ and His apostles. We often fail to appreciate that the church was founded not upon the apostolic documents, but rather the apostolic doctrine. The church existed at least a decade before the earliest book of the New Testament was penned, and possibly as long as six decades until it was completed. But during this period it was not without authority. Its standard, its canon, was ultimately Jesus Christ Himself,43 and mediately His apostles. Even in the immediate post-apostolic period we find a great stress on apostolic tradition along side a written New Testament canon.44
As the apostles died, this living stream of tradition grew fainter. The written documents became progressively more important to the on-going life of the church. The question of competing authorities in the sense of written and oral tradition subsided. However, even as late as the mid-second century we find an emphasis on oral tradition which stands in some way parallel to the written gospels as authoritative...
...Without doubt, the earliest Bible for the Church consisted of the Old Testament Scriptures, interpreted Christologically. Additionally, in the New Testament itself we find at least one case of some New Testament books being placed on a par with the Old Testament.48 This probably indicates that even at this early date the writings of the apostles were viewed in some circles as being on a par with the Old Testament...
...Yet another factor which must be considered in the canonization of the New Testament is the phenomenon of Tatian's Diatesseron. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, took the four canonical gospels and from them composed a harmony. This work supplanted the canonical gospels in the Syrian church well into the fifth century, at which time the hierarchy made a concerted effort to stamp out the work and restore the four canonical gospels to their rightful place within the canon.54
The Festal letter of Athanasius (c. A.D. 367) is well known as the first list to contain all and only the present twenty-seven book New Testament Canon. Thirty years later the Synod of Carthage, under the influence of the great Augustine, reached a similar conclusion. Youngblood gives the common Protestant evaluation of these pronouncements:
Thus led (as we believe) by divine Providence, scholars during the latter half of the fourth century settled for all time the limits of the New Testament canon. The 27 books of Matthew through Revelation constitute that New Testament, which possesses divine authority equal to that of the Old.55
The problem with such a sweeping assertion is that it does not fit the historical facts. First, the synods of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but local assemblies whose decisions held sway only in the local sees.56 The Festal letter of Athanasius, to be sure, gives us the judgment of a key figure of the ancient church, but it did not bind even the Eastern Church.57 The ancient church never reached a conscious and binding decision as to the extent of canon. Proof of this fact can be seen in the canons of the various churches of the empire.
While the canon in the West proved to be relatively stable from the late fourth century, the canon in the oriental churches varied, sometimes widely. The Syriac church at the beginning of the fifth century employed only the Diatesseron (in place of the four gospels), Acts, and the Pauline epistles.58 During the fifth century the Peshitta was produced and became the standard Syriac version. In it the Diatesseron was replaced by the four gospels, 3 Corinthians was removed and three Catholic epistles, James, 1 Peter and 1 John were included. The Apocalypse and the other Catholic epistles were excluded, making a twenty-two book canon. The remaining books did not make their way into the Syriac canon until the late sixth century with the appearance of the Harclean Syriac Version.59 While the Syrian church recognized an abbreviated canon, the Ethiopic Church recognized the twenty-seven books of the New Testament plus The Shepherd of Hermas, 1 & 2 Clement and eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions.60
Even in the West the canon was not closed as tightly as commonly believed. A case in point is the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans. In the tenth century, Alfric, later Archbishop of Canterbury, lists the work as among the canonical Pauline epistles. Westcott observes that the history of this epistle "forms one of the most interesting episodes in the literary history of the Bible."61 He notes that from the sixth century onward Laodiceans occurs frequently in Latin manuscripts, including many which were prepared for church use. So common was the epistle in the Medieval period, it passed into several vernacular translations, including the Bohemian Bible as late as 1488. It also occurred in the Albigensian Version of Lyons, and while not translated by Wycliffe personally, it was added to several manuscripts of his translation of the New Testament.62
On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64
The point of this survey has been to demonstrate that the New Testament canon was not closed in the fourth century. Debates continued concerning the fringe books of the canon until the Reformation. During the Reformation, both the Reformed and Catholic Churches independently asserted the twenty-seven book New Testament canon...Rather than focus solely upon the external criteria of apostolicity, inspiration or providence for our assurance that our present twenty-seven book NT canon is indeed the canon of Jesus Christ I believe that there is a better way for us to approach the problem. This way is not new but a return to and recognition of the Reformers' doctrine of the witness of the Spirit and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture
The Autopistie of Scripture and the Witness of the Spirit
Discomfort with the traditional conservative Evangelical apologetic for the canon is not new...
...as Warfield and Ridderbos both have noted, no book of the New Testament as we possess it contains a certificate of authentication as to its apostolic origin. That is, from our perspective, separated by nearly two millennia from the autographs, we cannot rely upon such means as the known signature of the apostle Paul to assure a book's authenticity. Hence, we cannot use apostolicity as the means by which we are ultimately assured of the shape of the canon. The same can be said for the criterion of prophetic authorship, unless we merely beg the question and assert that the book itself is evidence that its author was a prophet.
I believe that the starting point of canonicity must be a recognition that at the most basic level it is the risen Lord Himself who is ultimately the canon of His church.70 As Ridderbos has observed:
The very ground or basis for the recognition of the canon is therefore, in principle, redemptive-historical, i.e. Christological. For Christ himself is not only the canon in which God comes to the world, but Christ establishes the canon and gives it its concrete historical form.71
It then follows that it is also Christ who causes His church to accept the canon and to recognize it by means of the witness of the Holy Spirit. With this proposition I believe most evangelical Protestants would agree. However, this does not relieve us of the responsibility of examining the history of the canon, nor does it give us the right to identify absolutely the canon of Jesus Christ with the canon of the church. As Ridderbos has said, ". . . the absoluteness of the canon cannot be separated from the relativity of history."72 In short, we confess that our Lord has given us an objective standard of authority, for our purposes today that consists of the written documents. But we also recognize that, due to sinfulness, insensitivity or misunderstanding, it is possible for us subjectively to fail to recognize properly the objective canon Christ has given. We may include a book which does not belong, or exclude a book which does belong.
How then are we to determine what properly belongs to the canon? Is it "every man for himself"? I believe that Charles Briggs has proposed a viable method for us to consider today. Following the Reformers, he proposed a threefold program for canon determination, built upon the "rock of the Reformation principle of the Sacred Scriptures."73 The first principle in canon determination was the testimony of the church. By examining tradition and the early written documents, he contended that probable evidence could be presented to men that the Scriptures "recognized as of divine authority and canonical by such general consent are indeed what they claim to be."74
With reference to the Protestant canon this evidence was, he believed, unanimous. This evidence was not determinative, however. It was only "probable." It was the evidence of general consent, although given under the leading of the Spirit. It was from this general consent that conciliar pronouncements were made. It did not, however, settle the issue, since divine authority could not be derived from ecclesiastical pronouncement or consensus. The second and next higher level of evidence was that of the character of the Scriptures themselves. This is the Reformers' doctrine of the autopistie of the Scriptures. Their character was pure and holy, having a beauty, harmony and majesty. The Scriptures also breathed piety and devotion to God; they revealed redemption and satisfied the spiritual longing within the soul of man. All these features served to convince that the Scriptures were indeed the very Word of God. As Briggs stated, "If men are not won by the holy character of the biblical books, it must be because for some reason their eyes have been withheld from seeing it."75 It is in light of this concept that we should understand the Syriac church's rejection of the Apocalypse and Luther's rejection of the book of James. In both cases there was a pressing theological reason which kept them from seeing the divine fingerprints upon specific books of the New Testament. In a very real sense it was their zeal for the truth of the apostolic faith/gospel which blinded them.76
The third and highest principle of canon determination was that of the witness of the Spirit. He stated, "The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the particular writing . . . , in the heart of the believer, removing every doubt and assuring the soul of its possession of the truth of God."77
Briggs saw the witness of the Spirit as threefold. As noted earlier, the Spirit bore witness to the particular writing. Secondly, the Spirit bore witness "by and with the several writings in such a manner as to assure the believer"78 that they were each a part of the one divine revelation. This argument was cumulative. As one recognized one book as divine, it became easier to recognize the same marks in another of the same character.79 A systematic study of the Scriptures yielded a conviction of the fact that the canon was an organic whole. The Holy Spirit illumined the mind and heart to perceive this organic whole and thus gave certainty to the essential place of each writing in the Word of God.80
Third, the Spirit bore witness "to the church as an organized body of believers, through their free consent in their various communities and countries to the unity and variety of the . . . Scriptures as the complete and perfect canon."81 This line of evidence was a reworking of the historical argument but strengthening it with the "vital argument of the divine evidence."82 Whereas before, the church testimony was external and formal, whenever the believer came to recognize the Holy Spirit as the guiding force in the Church in both the formation and recognition of the canon, "then we may know that the testimony of the Church is the testimony of divine Spirit speaking through the Church."83
Focusing on the principle of the witness of the Spirit for assurance in canonical questions introduced a subjectivity factor which rendered the question of canon, in the absolute sense, undefinable.84 While the Reformers did attempt in their creeds to define the limits of canon, Briggs contended that in so doing they betrayed their own principle of canon determination. If Scripture was self-evidencing, then that evidence that God was the Author was to the individual.85 In addition, doctrinal definition, in order to be binding upon the Church, had to be held by consensus of the whole church. Both the Reformed churches and the Roman Catholic Church represented but a fraction of the church catholic, hence, they could not give definitive pronouncement to canon questions.86 He held that the question of canon must then be regarded as open to this day in the subjective sense. An individual believer was thus free to doubt the canonicity of a particular book without the fear of being charged with heresy.87
Summarizing Briggs' method of canon determination: first, the logical order began with the human testimony as probable evidence to the divine origin of Scripture. This testimony brought the individual to esteem the Scriptures highly. Next, when he turned to the pages of Scripture itself, they exerted an influence upon his soul. Finally, the divine testimony convinced him of the extent of the truth of God, at which point he shared in the consensus of the church.88
Conclusion
The question of the Canon of the New Testament is clearly not as simple as it appears in survey texts and popular presentations...
...Yet, American evangelicals have forsaken their Reformation heritage and slipped into the same type of rationalism regarding the canon as that for which we castigate liberals of a bygone era. My point here is that we as Evangelical Christians are by definition, people of faith. I believe that when we attempt to build our rationale for our New Testament canon solely upon rational ground we betray the faith principle.
The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation. Scripture as the Word of God brings with it its own witness, the Holy Spirit, who alone can give certainty and assurance.
The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. If an individual believer should come to question or reject a book or books of the accepted canon, should that person be regarded as a heretic, or accepted as a brother whose opinions are not necessarily endorsed?
The full article is worth reading.
The article from F.F. Bruce that I had intended to quote is here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html
Calvin's ideas can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic: Canon of the New Testament, by GEORGE J. REID, Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301195136/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
I only quote a bit (hence, 2 1/2 views) because much of the history is a repeat of previous writing, and the basic approach, to me, seemed to be 'the Catholic Church decided at Trent - don't question'.
...Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council...
The principle of canonicity
Before entering into the historical proof for this primitive emergence of a compact, nucleative Canon, it is pertinent to briefly examine this problem: During the formative period what principle operated in the selection of the New Testament writings and their recognition as Divine?--Theologians are divided on this point. This view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship. Moreover, the advocates of this hypothesis point out that the Apostles' office corresponded with that of the Prophets of the Old Law, inferring that as inspiration was attached to the munus propheticum so the Apostles were aided by Divine inspiration whenever in the exercise of their calling they either spoke or wrote. Positive arguments are deduced from the New Testament to establish that a permanent prophetical charisma (see CHARISMATA) was enjoyed by the Apostles through a special indwelling of the Holy Ghost, beginning with Pentecost....These authors (some of whom treat the matter more speculatively than historically) admit that Apostolicity is a positive and partial touchstone of inspiration, but emphatically deny that it was exclusive, in the sense that all non-Apostolic works were by that very fact barred from the sacred Canon of the New Testament. They hold to doctrinal tradition as the true criterion...
...This Gospel was announced to the world at large, by the Apostles and Apostolic disciples of Christ, and this message, whether spoken or written, whether taking the form of an evangelic narrative or epistle, was holy and supreme by the fact of containing the Word of Our Lord. Accordingly, for the primitive Church, evangelical character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee this character it was necessary that a book should be known as composed by the official witnesses and organs of the Evangel; hence the need to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ. In Batiffol's view the Judaic notion of inspiration did not at first enter into the selection of the Christian Scriptures. In fact, for the earliest Christians the Gospel of Christ, in the wide sense above noted, was not to be classified with, because transcending, the Old Testament. It was not until about the middle of the second century that under the rubric of Scripture the New Testament writings were assimilated to the Old; the authority of the New Testament as the Word preceded and produced its authority as a New Scripture. (Revue Biblique, 1903, 226 sqq.) Monsignor Batiffol's hypothesis has this in common with the views of other recent students of the New Testament canon, that the idea of a new body of sacred writings became clearer in the Early Church as the faithful advanced in a knowledge of the Faith. But it should be remembered that the inspired character of the New Testament is a Catholic dogma, and must therefore in some way have been revealed to, and taught by, Apostles...
...Even those Catholic theologians who defend Apostolicity as a test for the inspiration of the New Testament (see above) admit that it is not exclusive of another criterion, viz., Catholic tradition as manifested in the universal reception of compositions as Divinely inspired, or the ordinary teaching of the Church, or the infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils. This external guarantee is the sufficient, universal, and ordinary proof of inspiration. The unique quality of the Sacred Books is a revealed dogma. Moreover, by its very nature inspiration eludes human observation and is not self-evident, being essentially superphysical and supernatural. Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith...
Pope Leo used “dictate” “utter” and “inspire” pretty much interchangeably in his encyclical.
That textual details are different does not mean that the accounts as written are not each inerrant.
***Pope Leo used “dictate” “utter” and “inspire” pretty much interchangeably in his encyclical.
That textual details are different does not mean that the accounts as written are not each inerrant.***
As written when and by whom? By the author of Hebrews? By the author of 2 Peter? Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Who wrote Revelation? We don’t know; but the point is that the Church decided that these books are Scripture. But the meaning of them is held to the Church. I cannot restate it enough: the JWs have constructed a complete fantasy theology based upon Scripture (and largely the Gospels) and have the quotes to prove it.
The Trinitarian doctrine and the Divinity of Jesus can be disproven from the right Scriptural verses. Just ask the Mormons; Jesus was a man and now is Jehovah. The Holy Spirit is basically a cell phone or wire service.
Martin Luther in his hubris claimed that Scripture was so understandable that every milkmaid or child of nine that could read could interpret Scripture. At the end of his life, he realized that every person who could read could create his own religion.
There are some that believe that Luther recanted, repented and died a Catholic because of the results of his heresies. Only the Good Lord knows; but from what I’ve read about his life, it seems possible.
Luther didn’t recant. Nor did he claim it was a mistake to trust scripture. Evil men can twist anything, but scripture remains God-breathed...and understandable WITHOUT interpretation by a church.
BTW - where IS the official church interpretation of verses? I cited some comments from the NAB, and was told they were wrong...seems they didn’t support using 1 Cor 3 to support Purgatory.
If you can’t trust the Catholic footnotes in a Catholic Bible, then where IS the Catholic’s Church’s infallible interpretation kept?
***Luther didn’t recant.***
How do you know?
***Nor did he claim it was a mistake to trust scripture. ***
What he actually said was that any milkmaid or child of nine that could read could create his or her own religion.
***Evil men can twist anything***
So can well intentioned men.
***but scripture remains God-breathed***
What does this mean?
***and understandable WITHOUT interpretation by a church.***
Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.
***BTW - where IS the official church interpretation of verses? ***
The Catechism.
***I cited some comments from the NAB, and was told they were wrong...seems they didn’t support using 1 Cor 3 to support Purgatory.***
I have no knowledge of this. Could you please enlighten me?
***If you can’t trust the Catholic footnotes in a Catholic Bible, then where IS the Catholic’s Church’s infallible interpretation kept?***
Could you please fill me in on this encounter?
“Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.”
Really? Guess I missed that part.
The Catechism is a collection of beliefs, not interpretation of scripture.
The Purgatory discussion took place perhaps 3 weeks ago. I pointed out the footnote on 1 Cor 3 says, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians3.htm#foot8
Also, in the interest of honesty, I pointed out the footnote doesn’t PRECLUDE a purgatorical interpretation, but it does make it clear that wasn’t the author’s primary objective.
I was told both the NAB & its footnotes were terrible, and to use the Catechism instead.
In the end, I believe there is simply an irreconcilable disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the role of scripture. I find the Catholic view - that the church defines beliefs and uses the Bible and other sources to support them - deeply sad. Of course, Catholics regret my insistence on interpreting scripture.
Although, oddly enough, Augustine wrote several books on interpreting scripture:
“...After detailing with much care and minuteness the various qualities of an orator, he recommends the authors of the Holy Scriptures as the best models of eloquence, far excelling all others in the combination of eloquence with wisdom. He points out that perspicuity is the most essential quality of style, and ought to be cultivated with especial care by the teacher, as it is the main requisite for instruction, although other qualities are required for delighting and persuading the hearer. All these gifts are to be sought in earnest prayer from God, though we are not to forget to be zealous and diligent in study...that they all have the same end in view, to bring home the truth to the hearer, so that he may understand it, hear it with gladness, and practice it in his life.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.iii.html
“39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.”
***“Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.”
Really? Guess I missed that part.***
I will quote from the front page of Scripture Catholic.com:
Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord’s body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God’s Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus’ flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
***The Catechism is a collection of beliefs, not interpretation of scripture.***
The Catechism is an indepth explanation of the Faith, as oppposed to the summaries of the Creeds. The Catechism has very good explanations of Scripture as it goes through the entire explanation.
***The Purgatory discussion took place perhaps 3 weeks ago. I pointed out the footnote on 1 Cor 3 says, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”***
The best explanation in the Canon of Scripture is in 2 Maccabees; you must remember that the Church began long before any NT writings existed. Doctrines and the Faith were rigourously taught by Jesus during His Mission. But the Apostles, after the death, Resurrection, Ascension and then Pentecost had only the Septuagint and the oral Tradition. No NT Scripture. As the writings began (hundreds of book over the next 2 centuries), they reflected the biases of the authors and eventually the Church was forced to have a Canon of Scripture.
Scripture arose partially in tandem with, but usually following the development of the Church. Many writings were considered Scripture up until that final Council and then were set aside. Much doctrine arose from those writings that are not now considered Scripture. Yet the Church kept them and built upon them. Many sayings of Jesus were not contained within current Scripture, yet these are as valid as those contained in the Bible.
The Church has the authority and the responsibility to formulate doctrine and to promulgate the Faith. Not Luther’s any milkmaid in personal interpretation. We must remember that it is the Church that is the foundation and pillar of Truth, and not even Scripture itself.
“”Although, oddly enough, Augustine wrote several books on interpreting scripture””
Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!
From Saint Augustine...
“If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema.”- Augustine “Contra litteras Petiliana”, (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6
“Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” .... “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”-Augustine (”De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3)
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.
Sorry,I misread what you wrote
How do you know the author was inspired and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?
There are two versions of Mark 1:1. One says that this is the story about "Jesus the Anointed One (Christ)," and the other one says "Jesus the Anointed One, Son of God." There are two versions of +Luke's Gospel. One is 10% longer. +John's Gospel is out of sequence, and no copies exist that are in sequence, etc.
Care to tell me which one is the original? No one knows! Yet you claim "we" know. Perhaps you'd care to explain just how do "we" know and where does this gnosis come from?
That is the only logical meaning of "God-breathed", or "inspired", as Pope Leo shows.
No, Alex. The only meaning of being "inspired" or "breathed" is how it is used throughout the rest of the Bible. God's Spirit (power) is likened to the wind (powerful breath) that moves people and things, or brings them to life. When +John hears a voice that tells him to write what he saw, he is moved or inspired by that experience to write what he saw. There is nothing in any of the usage of God's Spirit in the Bible that even hints at your conclusion.
It is possible for several textually different narratives to exist and for them all to be inerrant in that sense
They can convey the same message even in different words, the way one can report on an event in two different narratives. What remains enigmatic are quoted conversations when none of the authors was there to see or hear what transpired.
In fact [sic], the multiplicity of views on the events and teachings during the ministry of Christ on earth is in itself a divinely [sic] dictated feature of the scriptures.
A fact ? Divinely dictated at that? Such matter-of-fact claims are pure blather, Alex. If they are facts, I say prove them! Faith doesn't require proof, but facts do.
Your post is remarkable for its errors and exagerations. I don’t have time now, but will address some over the next day or two. Here is one:
““I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.”
The question Augustine is answering is a heretical sect that has written ‘new scripture’ - “the Fundamental Epistle”.
Augustine rejects it, and Manichæus’s ‘Apostolic Authority’.
He wrote:
“Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, 131 in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened.
The epistle begins thus:—”Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.” Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason?
It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel.”
The entire passage and book can be read here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html
It is easy, 1500 years later, to read into a sentence meaning the writer didn’t intend. Did Augustine mean ‘Because the Council of the Catholic Church under the Authority of the Pope declared it, I believe the Gospel’? Writing in 397AD, does he write, “Interestingly enough, just 4 years ago, the African Synod of Hippo discussed this very issue...” Does he say “The Council of Carthage has/will deal with this issue”? Does his writing have ANYTHING to do with top down hierarchical authority, or the Pope?
No. He references the Catholic Church once, and uses “Catholics” the next 5 times.
“If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you...”
The Catholics - used at that time of ALL christians, not those under the authority of Rome - taught Augustine the Gospel. And what Gospel? The one they all accepted. The Councils in Africa were not directed top-down by ‘The Vicar of Christ’, nor did they make any decision apart from what their believing members already thought. They largely RATIFIED current practice.
“First, the well-known distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena must be understood. Seven of the New Testament books (the antilegomena) were seriously doubted by some in the early church. The four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John were, however, never seriously questioned in the early church. These books are known as the homologoumena. As soon as the post-apostolic church becomes visible in the early second century, it emerges treating these books as possessing authority.
Second, the Christian must take into account the difficulties of communication in the early church. It is not surprising that some books took a period of time to gain acceptance in sections of the early church which were a long ways from those to hwome they were first written. Westcott argues this point persuasively:
The common meeting-point of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jerusalem, and from that time national Churches grew up around their separate centres, enjoying in a great measure the freedom of individual development, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated forms, peculiar tendencies of doctrine or ritual. As a natural consequence [result—SW], the circulation of some books of the New Testament for a while depended, more or less, on their supposed connexion with specific forms of Christianity; and the range of other books was limited either by their original destination [the place they were first written to—SW] or by nature of their contents. (22)
Third, it must be remembered that what is under discussion is the universal acceptance of the New Testament. There is evidence that all of the books of the New Testament were regarded as possessing authority in some sections of the church almost from the beginning.
Fourth, it must be remembered that early Christians surrounded by a living oral tradition created by the original, apostolic preachers of the gospel did not feel the necessity for a written canon that we now feel. The need for a written canon may seem obvious to us, but it did not seem obvious to them at first. We must remember also that many early Christians lived in the hope of Christ’s imminent return. Thus, they did not see or sense the necessity of a New Testament canon immediately.”
Of books rejected, there were only 2 serious contenders - The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, and those two were only explicitly recognized (that I know of - I’m way our of my area of expertise, which is actually electronic warfare!) in one list around 400AD. Numerous church fathers rejected them both.
In rejecting Manichæus’s Epistle, Augustine asks what the African Councils asked - was it written by a recognized Apostle (no), and was it accepted as scripture - gospel - by the Catholics (Christians) of the time (no). Therefor he rejected its ‘authority’.
However, when you take one sentence out of context and apply modern ideas backwards into it, you get the idea that Augustine only believed the Gospel because the Pope told him to - which is ridiculous.
I apologize for the first sentence in post 110...I was actually thinking about another subject when I typed it, and didn’t get it erased. It wasn’t meant for you and I’m sorry I didn’t catch it before posting. My error entirely.
“Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!”
That is correct regarding canon - although Augustine used a ‘bottom-up’ approach to the question, as did the African Councils.
However, he didn’t write books on how to interpret scripture in hopes folks would not do so.
And if the Catholic Church has the authoritative interpretation of scripture, it would be nice if they would share it. I suggest publishing it...perhaps as, “The Vatican’s Authorized Interpretation of Scripture”. I’m sure it would be a best-seller, and all other Bible Commentaries - including those written by various church fathers - would no longer be needed.
But there is no authoritative church tradition handed down from the Apostles - a rather gnostic sounding idea anyways. When the Pope needs to announce a feast day for Mary, he just cherry-picks various catholic writers and calls it tradition, while ignoring those same fathers who disagree.
I think some of your historical concepts are somewhat confused, base don your writing.
Ummm, that can't be right. The writings of SS Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and by Clement I of Alexandria (the earliest writers) suggest otherwise. It was not until Irenaeus, end of 2nd century, that not only are the books generally accepted save for a few (and not necessarily in the same version), but St. Irenaeus for the first time assigns authorship to the Gospels by name. Until that time, no one quoted the Gospels by name of the author, because the manuscripts were anonynymous.
Anyway, St. Irenaeus used oral tradition as the authority rather than the written, and he was way past the original apostolic authors.
Augustine was in communion with the Catholic Church-including the Pope. He was not in communion self interpretation of Scripture outside of Church teaching.
From Blessed Augustine
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
***But there is no authoritative church tradition handed down from the Apostles - a rather gnostic sounding idea anyways. ***
The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.
It is only those such as Origen that go far and do not return or repent of heresies that are excommunicated for their hubris.
“The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
Sounds a lot like, “Whatever the Pope says, I’ll believe.” After all, there can be many opinions, but the Pope gets to pick “...those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
I think this Protestant understands what it is, but I can’t understand believing it has any validity. It explains why the Catholic Church shuns Scripture as the rule of faith, since ANY rule of faith would limit the Pope’s power.
Either you misunderstood what I wrote, or I wrote poorly. I agree that there was no universal papal authority in 400AD. That was an innovation the Bishop of Rome pushed in contradiction to the scripture. I also agree that at that time, there was no concept of a Christian who wasn’t Catholic. I also agree that there wasn’t total unanimity on the canon of the NT, although I believe there was a pretty strong consensus from the beginning that the gospels and the letters of Paul were inspired by God. But even the (Roman) Catholic Church allowed debate on canon until Trent.
My point was that someone who accepts current Catholic teaching - which evolves, as has been pointed out - sees meaning in Augustine (and scripture!) that wasn’t meant by the writer.
And avoiding that error is always a challenge for a modern reader. I’m sure I fail at it often myself.
***Sounds a lot like, “Whatever the Pope says, I’ll believe.” After all, there can be many opinions, but the Pope gets to pick “...those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”***
I see where you are coming from. However; the Pope is not by himself the consensus patrem and never really has been. The doctrine is normally agreed upon by the bishops. The Pope is, really, just another bishop.
***I think this Protestant understands what it is, but I can’t understand believing it has any validity. It explains why the Catholic Church shuns Scripture as the rule of faith, since ANY rule of faith would limit the Pope’s power.***
It’s not about the Pope’s power. And I would contend that the Catholic Church venerates Scripture above and beyond that of any Protestant organization or disorganization. We brought it; we validated it; we blessed it; we continue to bring it to the world. We also bring the authority of Jesus Christ; unfortunately there are many who refuse it. Assuming unmerited authority usually brings its own reward.
Of course, being Latin, Blessed Augustine was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West).
When Blessed Augustine says he is moved by the authority of the Catholic Church to believe thesciptures, he is referring to the entire Church (the Greek and Latin side).
However, being Latin, he was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West), so, he might just as well be referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
But He is definitely not referring to the "community of believers," as some Protestants imply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.