Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
Orthodox Christian Information Center, bible.org, Catholic Encyclopedia ^ | 20 Aug 2009 | Daniel F. Lieuwen, M. James Sawyer, GEORGE J. REID

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...


TOPICS: Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; History; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: 405ad; canon; history; popestinnocent405ad; selectiveediting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last
To: kosta50
corection:

Of course, being Latin, Blessed Augustine was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West).

121 posted on 08/29/2009 7:26:03 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; MarkBsnr
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.”

That's not how the undivided Church operated. Church doctrine was decided by the General (Ecumenical) Councils, or consensus patrum, as Mark said. Of course the Pope's approval was always critical.

But, as in the case of Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, the Pope "vetoes" it, but the Council passed it, the Emperor approved and by the yimre a year was up even the Illyrian bishops, under +Pope Leo I 's jurisdiction accepted it.

The Catholic Church recognized Canon XXVIII at the (faux) re-unification Council in Florence, a thousand years later, yet the Latin Church recognized the Council of Chalcedon despite papal objections and refusal to sign Canon XXVIII.

In other words, there was no "Whatever the Pope says, I believe..." stuff. The Church was conciliar, not dictatorial, even though +Leo I was credited for being the father of imperial papacy..

122 posted on 08/29/2009 7:43:04 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

I agree - with the undivided church. I was referring to this comment about the modern Catholic Church:

“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 could be I was mixing consensuses between modern and ancient...Protestants also have a hard time setting aside our current understanding when reading about the past.

When I read the Papal proclamation on a feast day for Mary’s Assumption, I was shocked by the ‘this saint said this, this saint said that, my beloved sainted predecessor said this, and painting show that...’ approach to doctrine. It was so far out of my background that I went to the Vatican website to see if I was being spoofed.


123 posted on 08/29/2009 8:10:15 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
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

Granting that we don't, -- so?

124 posted on 08/29/2009 10:06:24 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
How do you know the author was inspired

Because the Catohlic Church canonized the book.

and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?

We don't always know, but when there is a danger of misinterpretation, the Church helps. How does she know? The Holy Spirit dictates her what to decide.

none of the authors was there to see or hear what transpired

That is quite miraculous, isn't it?

throughout the rest of the Bible [...] God's Spirit (power) is likened to the wind (powerful breath) that moves people and things

In Luke 12, for example, Jesus says "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say". That is closer to dictation than to moving people. Likewise in John 16, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak". An in John 14, "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". All these passages refer to actual speach of the Holy Ghost, and not to mere suggestons and encouragements.

125 posted on 08/29/2009 10:18:51 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I agree - with the undivided church. I was referring to this comment about the modern Catholic Church

The basic governing principle of authority vested in the Church has not changed since Blessed Augustine's writings. What changed is where that authority lies, at least in the Latin Church.

The Church claimed magisterial authority pretty much by the end of the first century, based on what +Ignatius wrote c. AD 105 when he says "where there is a bishop, there is the catholic Church."

And the New Testament speaks of "leaders" and "elders" of the Church in Paul's Epistles, which means the hierarchical authority existed in the late 40's or early 50's of the 1st century.

And +Paul specifically states that God appoints some to be apostles, some presbyters, teachers, etc., suggesting that not even God wanted everyone to be the "royal priesthood." Only some are called to specific duties in the Church. The NT also tells us that Jesus revealed his secrets to the apostles privately, and to no one else (Mar 4:34).*

*Here, of course the issue of translational bias becomes apparent. Protestant versions (KJV, NIV, etc) tend to ignore the private aspect of the message, but the word idios can mean only one thing – to one's own, and no one else.

Also, the elders in the Church during Paul's lifetime took it upon themselves (as their "right" or authority) to commission (ordain) in the name of God by laying of the hands. No one apparently waited for God to appoint anyone as he did with allegedly with +Paul or the prophets of the Old Testament. The choosing now became part of the "authority" vested in the primitive Church in the earliest days of the Church.

So, there is no doubt that the Church hierarchy and authority vested in some individuals existed from the beginning so to say, and that they passed on that authority on those they elected and laid their hands on, in the name and in place of God. The church was a caste-system from the beginning by all accounts.

As the apostolic age drew to a close, the bishops (presbyters) were seen as apostolic successors (office-wise, not inspiration-wise), whose authority has been passed on to them via election of the elders. And it was up to the bishop to oversee doctrine and faith. Naturally, just as the apostles did not lord over each other, neither did the bishops.

They were all of equal dignity, i.e. Peter was not telling Paul what is doctrine, nor did Peter jurisdictionally oversee other apostles. Ecclesial divisions and ranking among bishops began later on, when the diocese grew in size and number of believers, and one bishop could not be a shepherd to all at the same time.

Eventually, the centers of power began to shift from early Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) to the seat of imperial power and dignity of the Senate of Rome, which was an immensely important symbolic factor of Roman authority (remember that the official title of the Roman State was the Senate and People of Rome, or Senatus Populusque Romanus, otherwise known as the acronym SPQR).

As the Senate moved together with the imperial throne to Constantinople (New Rome) that city (and the bishop';s seat in that city) took on the dignity equal to (the old) Rome, and only second in honor (Canon XXVIII, Council of Chalcedon), eclipsing older, biblical centers of Christianity mentioned earlier).

The evolution of the magisterial power in the Latin Church shifted to the pope, first with +Leo I in the early 5th century, by insisting on the biblical primacy of the successor of Peter, and then, due to historical developments, the western Church de facto began to separate itself from the East liturgically, linguistically and theologically and jurisdictionally by the 6th century.

By then, hardly anyone spoke Greek in the West creating a de facto schism, the filioque was added illegitimately to the Creed, the Traditional Latin Mass was in its final remaining steps of completion, and the popes were seeking alternate sponsors among Frankish kings while still officially being subjects, and owing allegiance (on paper) to the Emperor in Constantinople.

In fact, the "undivided" Church spent decades in actual schism with the East over theological and other issues between the 5th and the 11th century. After the Great Schism in 1054, the imperial papacy became the norm, but it was not until the Vatican I (end of 19th century) that the papal "ex-cathedra infallibility" took on the authority of a dogma.

As the "Viccar of Christ" on earth, the pope is under no obligation to consult with, or receive approval from the College of Cardinals—and can proclaim dogma or doctrine by fiat (i.e. the dogma of Immaculate Conception, c. middle of the 19th century).

While this may seem repulsive to more conciliar-minded Christian communities such as yours of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the truth is that the authority to interpret and to determine doctrine has only been shifted from many bishops to one.

Thus, the authority of the Church as the source of magisterium  has not changed from the beginning (and in the beginning it was not based on scripture because the NT has not been written yet); what has changed is only in the number of individuals claiming that absolute authority.

If you are going to question the authority of the Church, you are questioning something that not even the apostles questioned. If you are going to insist that the authority comes from the scripture, scriptures themselves prove you wrong. By accepting the scirputres you accept the hierarchichal authoirty of the Church.

126 posted on 08/30/2009 10:21:40 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
When I read the Papal proclamation on a feast day for Mary’s Assumption, I was shocked by the ‘this saint said this, this saint said that, my beloved sainted predecessor said this, and painting show that...’ approach to doctrine.

The belief that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul is as quite old, going back to the early  Church. In the East, it was celebrated as the Feast of the Dormition of Theotokos (not exactly sure of the date of this custom).

Although it was never acquired in the West, the Church as a whole believed it by all accounts. So, the Pope wasn't really just pulling rabbits out of a hat. It is a traditional belief in the Church, held by early Christians and apparently approved tacitly or openly by the hierarchy, even if it was not dogmatized until later.

In fact, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has never been dogmatized, yet the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos has been celebrated without interruption ever since it began.

127 posted on 08/30/2009 10:22:22 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: annalex
[Kosta: How do you know the author was inspired] Alex: Because the Catholic Church canonized the book.

That is not a fact; that is a belief. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, Alex. You can claim it as a belief but not as a fact.

[Kosta: and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?] Alex: The Holy Spirit dictates her what to decide.

How do you know that? Again, you are presenting your beliefs as facts. if they are facts I want factual proof.

In Luke 12, for example, Jesus says "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say".

No, the verse reads "what is necessary (dei) to say."The choice is still yours. Is this like the one "don't worry what you will eat...?" How many have starved doing that?

The oldest Luke copies date to the third century (P45 and P75). We don't know if those words are a latter-day interpolation or not. We know how the Old Testament speaks of the Spirit of God, and it doesn't match Luke or John. The word for spirit simply means "breath" in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Also, you can be taught without speaking in words or dictating.

That is closer to dictation than to moving people

Obviously not, Alex. A hot stove "taught" me what was necessary not to do. A knife "taught" me what wabsolutely necessary not to cut myself. 

Likewise in John 16, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak [and he will shew you things to come.]"

That sentence makes no sense. The Spirit will serve as your "fly on the wall!?" This Spirit, whom Christians believe is God  Himself, has to "hear" things in order to let you know?! This is like that Old Testament passage where God has to come "down" to see what's going on in order to know! LOL!

An in John 14, "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". All these passages refer to actual speach of the Holy Ghost, and not to mere suggestons and encouragements

No, they don't, Alex. What they show is a state of doctrinal confusion and development of doctrine in the early Church  as to who or what the Holy Spirit is and what He really does. Obviously John's concept of an all-seeing and all-knowing Holy Spirit is deficient because He has to "hear" things in order to tell you.

Or, in another exmaple, all known surviving copies of John call Jesus God, yet in John 15:15 Jesus says "For all things that I have heard [sic] from my Father I have made known to you"! You don't see serious Chrisotlogical and Penumatic issues in these passages?

Another problem is: If Jesus told his disicples everything he heard from the Father that means the Father hasn't told the Son everything if the Spirit has to teach us the rest.

Of course, +John wrote at the end of the century. His Gospel is like night and day compared to the other three. A lot has happened between 33 AD and 99 AD. Christianity was no longer a Jewish sect.

In fact, John depicts Jesus referring to the Jews as if he were not one of them — "your law" or "of the Jews" (John 5:1; 7:2; 11:55). A whole new religion was in the making...

128 posted on 08/30/2009 11:25:08 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: annalex
[Kosta: none of the authors was there to see or hear what transpired] Alex: That is quite miraculous, isn't it?

Not really, Alex. Think about it: If God himself has to come "down" and "see" and "hear" what's going on, it seems silly to say that the disciples saw and heard without being there!

129 posted on 08/30/2009 11:30:25 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: annalex

***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

Granting that we don’t, — so?***

So we defer to the Church as to its interpretation. It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is.


130 posted on 08/30/2009 6:14:16 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

It sound, Kosta, that you have your own interpretation of the passages in view which competes with the Catholic interpretation. If the Catholic interpretation has not become clear to you till this point, let us focus on what your remaining questions are.

As to your own ideas, I might have a comment if you present them in some systematic way.


131 posted on 08/30/2009 6:29:05 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Yes, I agree.


132 posted on 08/30/2009 6:29:36 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Mr Rogers
It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is

But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That's hardly a proof.

133 posted on 08/30/2009 10:26:05 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: annalex
If the Catholic interpretation has not become clear to you till this point, let us focus on what your remaining questions are

The Catholic interpretation is perfectly clear to me. I just don't agree with it because it's telling me the Emperor has clothes when I can see clearly he doesn't.

As to your own ideas, I might have a comment if you present them in some systematic way

How about if you just explain why does the Holy Spirit have to "hear" things in order to tell you? One would think he would know already without having to hear it.

And this secret knowldge that is being passed on is precisely why John was so popualr with Gnostics.

Alex, I fully understand your indignation. My reaction to discoveries of this sort scadalized me as well until it became apparent that things were not exaclty as we learned in Sunday school.

134 posted on 08/30/2009 10:37:22 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

What is there to explain? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are persons. That’s what persons do, they talk and they hear. They don’t teach that in Sunday School?


135 posted on 08/31/2009 8:26:28 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Mr Rogers

***It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is

But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That’s hardly a proof.***

No, it isn’t. We have the current Scripture and we have the other documentation that the Church possesses that indicates its authority to translate, interpret and teach. Does that constitute absolute proof? Of course not. But the documents held by the Church, and Scripture itself, point to the authority of the Church and refutes the authority of any individual. Again, it is not proof.

It does come down to faith. We have many indications that the faith is justified, yet in the end, it is faith. Kosta and I have been part of many conversations in the last couple of years that illustrated the differences between faith and proof, or faith and knowledge. I suspect that we will continue in the future as well.


136 posted on 08/31/2009 2:02:50 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: annalex

If we have no Magisterium, we have the development of anyone with whatever version of the Bible coming up with whatever they happen to come up. The JWs and the Pentecostals come to mind.


137 posted on 08/31/2009 5:15:15 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Of course. What makes you think I would disagree?

You seem to have some argument with me, judging by the several recent posts, but I do not know what that argument is. If - I am venturing a guess — you think that because of the multiplicity of codices, the need for magisterium, and the error of private interpretation, the scripture is not inerrant (despite the magisterial teaching in the Providentissimus Deus encyclical), then I do not see how it follows.


138 posted on 09/01/2009 8:43:30 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: annalex

***You seem to have some argument with me***

Not really. Mostly agreeing with your posts up to the point of the claim of inerrant Scripture. Scripture is not; the Church’s interpretation is.


139 posted on 09/01/2009 9:31:55 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Scripture is not

Particular codices and translations are not. The original -- whether we have it or not -- is inerrant, per the very Magisterial teaching, which is as you admit inerrant.

140 posted on 09/01/2009 9:43:28 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson