How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)

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!

...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...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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...

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

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

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 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...

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...

“14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.”

Now then, lets talk about you. You have posted quite a bit - so how is your prayer life doing? Why are you permitted to post replies, but find evil if I do?

I spent a fair bit of time a few days back defending the integrity of scripture, and God’s providence. Why does that disturb you?

And why are you disturbed if someone posts information - and I’ve only posted a couple (2!) - on the development and integrity of the NT? What exactly is it that bothers you about the New Testament?

Jesus said His sheep would know His voice - which is essentially the Protestant theory of determining scripture. I agree with the Orthodox writer - I believe God has guided His people in knowing which were scripture and which were not.

Why are you disturbed by that?

I suspect you would agree with this point of the Orthodox writer, which I edited out for space:

“The point of disagreement is, then, not on scripture’s role, but on the proper method of interpreting scripture. The differences comes not because one group studies scripture more carefully and respects it more. Commendable as such diligence is, careful and respectful study, while indispensable, is insufficient to discover the truths of the Christian faith if one comes to the Bible with the wrong set of assumptions. Most Orthodox and Protestant believers must admit that the Jehovah’s Witnesses study scripture more carefully than they do-the Jehovah’s Witnesses may even respect it more. However, like all of us, the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to scripture with a set of presuppositions-this cannot be avoided since

‘complete objectivity is impossible, even in perceiving the physical environment. What one knows already, one’s presuppositions and expectations will not only have a tremendous effect on what one sees and how one interprets but may even determine what one sees.’(67)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses provide a sobering warning that one’s devotion to scripture is not enough-the presuppositions of their tradition prevent them from seeing scripture clearly despite their devotion to it. It is also clear, for instance, that the presuppositions of an early Christian who grew up in a Judaism that was used to praying for the dead will be quite different from those of a twentieth century Protestant who grew up in a culture that has deplored prayer for the dead for over four-hundred years. Both would read the New Testament as justifying their status quo, but the status quo being justified would be quite different. However, it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.(68) Only scripture is ultimately authoritative for the defense of doctrine, but only with tradition can we obtain the correct presuppositions so that we can interpret scripture aright. Personal interpretation leads only to the chaos of literally tens of thousands of denominations-established because each founder, having his own personal presuppositions, taught a somewhat different gospel.”

I agree with the point of his argument, but not its direction. A few reasons:

1 - Personal interpretation of scripture is always wrong, as Calvin pointed out. We need the author, the Holy Spirit, to show us the meaning. I doubt Calvin or I differ from most Catholics or the Orthodox in that - but Calvin and I would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the believer, while the Catholic would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the Church.

2 - I’m not convinced that “...it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.” My reason is that the ‘early church’, as defined by the ‘church fathers’, generally lasts until around 600-700 AD. Most of the writing we have are from 300+ years later - as remote from the time of Jesus as the American Revolution is from us.

In addition, the culture of many of the church fathers was decidedly Greek or Roman, not Jewish. Given the wealth of resources we have now, and our ease of accessing them, we might WELL be able to understand the culture and thought of 30 AD better than an African writing in 380 AD.

3 - Part of the problem with reading church fathers is similar to reading scripture itself - it is easy to read our later doctrine into something written without any concept of our thought. When a church father writes about the wine being the blood and the bread being the body, was he talking about a spiritual sense, or transubstantiation?

When Augustine wrote, “The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ...” - was he writing like a Protestant, a Catholic, or was he not thinking about our doctrinal disputes at all?

4 - A minor point, but the literally tens of thousands of denominations comes from a book that says the Roman Catholic Church has well over 2000 denominations in it...the author uses denomination in a very unique way.

But if we all look to the same source for truth, we will eventually all come to the same point - like spokes of a wheel.

I’d also point out that Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, means that if it is not discussed in scripture, then I need not be dogmatic about it. I find the idea of the assumption of Mary weird, but it isn’t discussed in Scripture, and I wasn’t there - so who am I to tell someone they are wrong?

I agree with the excerpt, and if the direction is that the Protestant methodology of reading the scripture is deficient that I guess I would agree with that as well.

Calvin and I would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the believer, while the Catholic would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the Church

It is not a matter of mere emphasis. The claim of the dictation of the Holy Spirit contrary to the established mind of the Church is extraordinary. It therefore requires an extraordinary proof, or else it is not compelling. Surely if we are to reject individual interpretation we also must reject interpretation when the company of the Holy Spirit is claimed, but there is no evidence of unity with the fathers of the Church, who claim such divine company AND can demonstrate unity between themselves, AND with the scripture.

...the ‘early church’, as defined by the ‘church fathers’, generally lasts until around 600-700 AD. Most of the writing we have are from 300+ years later - as remote from the time of Jesus as the American Revolution is from us.

Many, especially in the East would argue that indeed, the "African writing in 380 AD" -- St. Augustine -- represents a point of discontinuity with the early Church. While his influence on the Western thinking is enormous, the Catholic Church rejects Augustinism precisely where his teachings begin to inspire Calvin, on radical depravity of man and irresistibility of Grace.

It is also true that the specifically Jewish form of Christianity did not survive the rejection of Christ by the Hebrew council of Jamnia; but the demarkation lines between Judaism and Christianity were set in the Scripture itself, in the parable of the guests at the wedding, sermons of St. Peter and St. Stephen in Jerusalem and, most decidedly, by St. Paul in Galatians.

It is not true that doctrinal discontinuity exists between the Antiquity and the Medieval Church. The 2c fathers, for example, Sts Irenaeus and Ignatius sound just as Orthodox/Catholic as Pope St. Gregory I, and , as I never tire to point out, the scripture itself has an indelible Catholic stamp as it speaks of a sacramental, hierarchical, single-minded Church.

What is sometime seen as discontinuity, the pre-Nicean and post-Nicean periods are simply the change that came about with the end of the persecutions and emergence of Christianity as state religion soon after. It was not a doctrinal change.

When a church father writes about the wine being the blood and the bread being the body, was he talking about a spiritual sense, or transubstantiation?

I think, they all write of it as a mystery. What you won't find in the Early Church is the attitude like "It's just a cracker". Transubstantiation is a technical term that would not be comprehensible without scholastic philosophy of form and substance. The distinction between the spiritual, the symbolic, and the real would also not be as clear in the antique culture as they are to us. Here's a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Letter to the Smyrneans

Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, means that if it is not discussed in scripture, then I need not be dogmatic about it. I find the idea of the assumption of Mary weird, but it isn’t discussed in Scripture, and I wasn’t there - so who am I to tell someone they are wrong?

But the scripture also delegates dispute resolution to the Church. The Church then is obligated, when a controversy reaches to the level threatening a schism, to resolve the dispute definitively. The resolution might be that both views are allowable (like Molinism and Thomism, or like theistic evolution and strict creationism), but it may also fall on one side of the dispute. The Church will not contradict the scripture in these dogmatic deliberations, but they are not limited to what is expressly contained in the scripture.

Forgive me if I disagree with your analysis of the exchanges between kosta50 & I [sic], although I’m glad you were interested enough to read them. Odd you worry about my making posts, yet reading them...I’ll still stick with FF Bruce over kosta50.

That's not exactly right. I cite several well-kown biblical scholars. You just choose not to acknowledge them. I guess that's your prerogative, but don't present it as if kosta50 is pulling things out of thin air. I do my best to back up my opinions with available evidence rather than invoke divine guidance, like some do, in my interpretations.

I used Wikipedia to cover various papyri...don’t recall anyone showing the info was wrong

SFA's point was that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for serious research because anyone, including you, could be changing it as you wish and then quoting from it as an authoritative source. I have seen the version of the Nicene Creed changed several times, some being almost unrecongizable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously, quote reliable, official, sources. Wikipedia is a great tool to find a quick 'big picture' idea, but not as a predominant source of one's references, especially on controversial issues.

Doctrinally there is continuity as you suggest, but not dogmatically. The early fathers had only notions of the dogmatic pronoucements of the Church that were to come, and not all of them were in full agreement.

This can be see from your own quote of St. Ignatius to Smyrinians where he says "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savor Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Here you have both doctrinal agreement and dogmatic disagreement. The agreement is that the Eucharist is the "flesh of our Saviour," but the dogmatic disagreement is in the suggestion that it was the Father (God) who raised him up again [sic].

The Nicene Creed corrects this by stating that Christ rose (himself) on the third day in order to emphasize the equality of the Son with the Father in his divinity. The subordination of the Son is to be found in the NT and as a predominant teaching of early Christian writers which inevitably led to the emergence of Chriostological heresies over time.

By the way, I seriously doubt that the copy of St. Irenaeus's epistle which you quote is genuine since no one before Irenaeus (end of 2nd century) quotes from any of the NT books by author's name (and verse numbers were not used). So, while the words of Matthew 19:12 would be very likely in his writings, the reference reference is not.

You also have to understand that the authenticity of Ignatius' seven (ah, that magical number!) letters is based on the testimony of none other than Eusebius of Cesarea, the first Church historian whose credibility is questioned or affirmed by people pretty much as they feel on that day, and that all of St. Ignatius' letters are latter-day copies which have, like all ancient documents, been altered and redacted by copyists pretty much as they saw fit.

Another example of dogmatic issues among early fathers is St. Irenaeus, who called Mary advocata (based on the only surviving complete copy of his work being a Latin translation from AD 380). Translated back into Greek, it means Paraclete. I don't have to tell you what sorts of problems this invokes, especially knowing that many thought of the Holy Spirit as being feminine.

This unfortunate reference is naturally shoved under the carpet and not talked about when we speak of St. Irenaeus' orthodoxy in other matters.

“I cite several well-kown [sic] biblical scholars. You just choose not to acknowledge them.”

I found where you cited a few sentences from Andrew Gregory at Oxford, I believe. You also quote him quoting Kim Haines-Eitzen. According to Cornell’s website, she “is Associate Professor of early Christianity and early Judaism and Chair for the Department of Near Eastern Studies. Her Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford University Press, 2000) is a social history of the scribes who copied Christian texts during the second and third centuries. She is currently working on another book that deals with the intersection of gender, text transmission, and literacy in early Christianity.” I can’t wait to see what she says about gender affecting text transmission in the early church...

Those were mentioned on the thread I posted on NT documents (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts).

I had quoted FF Bruce & Sir Frederic Kenyon, and posted a link to an entire book written by FF Bruce, and you said “Protestant Bible scholars, whether real or Wikipedia types (who porbably [sic] write Wiki article so they can use them as reference!) will continue to create biblical straw men and perpetuate their myths.” (reply 34)

I had started that thread after our discussion on this thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2310615/posts?page=317#317) - Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches

On that thread, you posted 3 pictures of papyri - single pages - and made it seem as tho that was the entire papyri “Here is Papyrus 46. very ‘complete’ indeed/s.”

In comparison, using Wikipedia to point out these papyri were much more extensive is a minor intellectual fault. Yes, I often use wiki - it is, as you have said, fast, and I’m already being criticized for spending way too much time researching and responding on these issues. If what I’ve posted from Wiki is wrong, point it out - but I’m not writing a scholarly paper. I have a daughter I’m home-schooling, 3 dogs, 3 horses, and will be protesting Rep Gabby Giffords (Rep, AZ-8) later today. I’m buying way too many books from Amazon.com and falling behind in reading them all.

Wiki was correct - the papyri were much more extensive than your set of pictures indicated.

However, while we often disagree, I’m enjoying all that I’ve learned both from you and in responding to you. These threads have forced me to think long and hard about what and why I believe, and driven me to find and read many fascinating articles - so keep on jumping in my chili where you think I’m wrong!

And I’ll feel free to do likewise...

;>)

I can’t wait to see what she says about gender affecting text transmission in the early church...

Whether she has an agenda or not (who doesn't?) does not disqualify her credentials. After all, Origen was wrong on some things, but on many, most in fact, he was a brilliant orthodox theologian. You can't discredit someone's evidence based on their agenda. You can discredit how they use that evidence. I also mentioned Ehrman. You may have issues with him as well, but Ehrman is a rather respectable scholar. I should have used Robert M. Grant (U. of Chicago), a rather brilliant textual critic, however we are all on a clock and sometimes cut corners and sometimes are just plain lazy because we are not writing a doctoral dissertation.

At any rate, it is never just FF Bruce and kosta50.

As far as papyri are concerned, most papyri come as single sheets, or a portion of one, often if not usually damaged, or as several sheets, or quite often as shreds containing but a potion of a verse or two.

The pictures I used were certainly not representative of the codices and I clearly made a mistake.

However mistaken I was, your conclusion (that the early Church had for all practical purposes agreed on the canon) was equally mistaken because that agreement was basically on the titles of the books, not necessarily what was in them. Not only did these codices contain other books as part of their canon, but they were books that were later rejected as heretical or simply not inspired.

Even the NT books that everyone agreed on were not always doctrinally compatible with each other, or the ones ones used after the 4th century.

Considerable variation in the NT books continued in various parts of the Christendom as evidenced by the 5th century Codex Bezae, and as mentioned by Freeper Uncle Chip regarding versions of Luke 4:4 and countless other variants which indicate that the same-name NT books were also often doctrinally divergent and not identical, which sort of explains why heresies emerged and persisted.

Likewise, the case of Matthew 28:19 as mentioned by Eusebius is another strong indicator that variant NT books, with significant divergences in doctrine, existed and that their simple namesake agreement among various churches did not necessarily mean doctrinal agreement; the contents of the NT are hardly pristine or somehow protected by the HolySpirit from any corruption.

Doctrinally, even the current NT teaches subordination of the Son. This flies in the face of orthodox Trinitarian dogma, but it is so widespread that any attempt at removing such verses would decimate the NT! Being one with the Father and being equal to the Father are two different things, as evidenced by "Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28). Most Chrsistological heresies came from the direct reading of the New Testament such as that one and, given variants, God only knows what else was in them! Current NT also has misquotes of the OT. As I commented to you, God doesn't misquote himself.

The Church teaches that the scriptures infallibly convey God's truth, not that they are free from any kind of corruption or that every word in it is God's own. Neither doctrine nor scriptures were in any way as we know them today. Catholic and Orthodox Church is a post-Nicene Church. They would like to think they are the same Church established in AD 33, but that would be difficult, if not impossible to prove. Apparently there was a faction of Christianity from the beginning that evolved and eventually won and became the "official" variant, claiming orthodox faith.

We all learn from each other. If we can stimulate each other to learn more, then it was all worth the effort (and aggravation sometimes). I learned that some of the papyri were actually extensive codices. That was rather eye-opening. While they point to the fact that early (end of 2nd century) Christians agreed on a lot of books (at least in name only), it turns out, the same codices also reinforced other evidence of a very doctrinally and canonically heterodox early Christianity. So, I thank you for making me aware of them and teaching me a valuable lesson with them.

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.