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...

***The Holy Scripture as dictated to the inspired authors ***

Alex, the Holy Spirit did not dictate the New Testament books. Luke expressly says so. The Epistles emphatically are letters written by bishops to their flocks. Even Revelation says in Revelation 1:
10
I was caught up in spirit on the Lord’s day 9 and heard behind me a voice as loud as a trumpet,
11
which said, “Write on a scroll 10 what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

Even John was instructed to write what he saw. Not what God dictated to him.

***This is how development of doctrine is possible within the Catholic Church.***

The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit; yet individuals within the Church such as Origen and Nestorius may wander into heresy and not return. Augustine wandered and returned but never quite shook his heresies from his writings.

the Holy Spirit did not dictate the New Testament books

Leo XIII's opinion is that He did, but of course the encyclical does not elaborate. Luke merely says that he is the human author. The point about "dictation" is somewhat semantical; the essential teaching is that the scripture is inerrant as written.

Yes, individuals err, even Catholic ones. The Church as a whole does not.

Pope Gregory receiving the dictation from the Holy Ghost

“”Leo XIII’s opinion is that He did, but of course the encyclical does not elaborate. Luke merely says that he is the human author.””

Correct,dear brother! So does the Catechism say Scripture was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

Mark Bsnr,

I think you're stepping outside on your own by saying the NT books were not guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church does NOT teach this!

The Holy Scripture as dictated to the inspired authors is inerrant if read with the intent and understanding of the inspired author

How do you know that?

It reflects the Holy (or Sacred, same word) Tradition but does not encompass all of it, because it does not contain the subsequent guidance of the Holy Ghost

How so? The Councils are believed inspired (by the Holy Spirit) and infallible, just like the Bible.

It is a living, self-correcting organism which as a whole protected from error by the Holy Ghost

Where does it say that?

Alex, you are pulling rabbits out of a hat. I am sorry, where does it say the New Testament was dictated by the Holy Ghost? Real Luke 1. And where does it say that "God-spirited" is inerrant?

In the Bible the term "spirited" or "breathed" means quickened, or moved, the way we are inspired to write when we experience something we wish to describe for others. It doesn't mean God "wrote" it.

The tradition where an author is 'possessed' (Mark would say 'hijacked') by the Spirit was started by someone who was not even a Christian, but an Alexandrian Jew rather, by the name of Philo.

His influence on the early Christian community has been so great that Eusebius, the first Church historian, refers to him as St. Philo (and he wasn't being sarcastic!).

What Pope Leo XIII said sounds every bit as Protestant as something Luther or Calvin or Zwingli would have said.

***the Holy Spirit did not dictate the New Testament books
Leo XIII’s opinion is that He did, but of course the encyclical does not elaborate. Luke merely says that he is the human author. The point about “dictation” is somewhat semantical; the essential teaching is that the scripture is inerrant as written.

Yes, individuals err, even Catholic ones. The Church as a whole does not. ***

We need to understand the difference between inspired and dictated. We have the claims that Muhammed had God dictate to him. Moses had God dictate to him. Joseph Smith claims that he had God dictate to him.

Yet the NT Scripture never claims that. Ever. In fact, the examples that I have given refute that. Luke says that he (Luke) decided to gather all the information that he could. John in Revelation says that he was told to write down what he saw. The Epistles are the bishops’ writings to their flocks.

Now we come to inspiration. We as Catholics believe that we see God through our limited human eyes and do our best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to put the infinite God into our limited understanding and words. The Church does not err; individuals do.

Belief, gentlemen. Belief. The Faith of the Apostles. The Deposit of Faith handed down to us. Those whom claim knowledge where there is faith are the theological descendants of the Gnostics (who enjoyed a Renaissance 500 years ago, and again 250 years ago, and again 100 years ago).

***I think you’re stepping outside on your own by saying the NT books were not guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church does NOT teach this!***

Where did I say this? Really, stf. Please read what I have posted. I am not a pagan opposed to the Church; but I do read Scripture and post the same; as well, I post Catechism when the occasion warrants it. Show me where the Church says that the NT was dictated.

If we look at what Leo XIII wrote in context, we see that "dictation" to him is another word for "inspiration":

...all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."(57)
Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

The thrust of his encyclical is that the scripture is inerrant. So long as we agree on that, the distinctions are semantical, and if we don't agree on that, some of us are not Catholic.

***The thrust of his encyclical is that the scripture is inerrant. So long as we agree on that, the distinctions are semantical, and if we don’t agree on that, some of us are not Catholic.***

As some of my friends have painfully shown me, Scripture in the various Bibles is not inerrant. The Church’s interpretation of them is. That is the difference. Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Calvin have equal authority and validity in their interpretation.

***If we look at what Leo XIII wrote in context, we see that “dictation” to him is another word for “inspiration”: ***

And I will accept that under the Church’s authority. Kosta is correct; to say that the NT was written by the Holy Spirit is Gnostic and as Reformation as they come.

***The tradition where an author is ‘possessed’ (Mark would say ‘hijacked’) by the Spirit was started by someone who was not even a Christian, but an Alexandrian Jew rather, by the name of Philo.

His influence on the early Christian community has been so great that Eusebius, the first Church historian, refers to him as St. Philo (and he wasn’t being sarcastic!).***

I believe that we need to leave possession to such entities as the Allah of Muhammed, the twin Gods of Joseph Smith, and the little blue men who burnt their captives in wicker baskets in primitive Britain (no, not current Scotland).

If we look at what Leo XIII wrote in context, we see that "dictation" to him is another word for "inspiration":

No, I think it's the other way around. He says:

it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true

That God can utter himself? Obviously, +Leo XIII considers the sacred writings God's own words. In other words, inspired means dictated in his own words! That is Protestant nonsense!

As Mark said correctly, the writers of the New Testament claim they wrote what they saw, remembered, gathered from eyewitnesses, etc. +John claims he was moved to write what he saw when he heard a voice to that effect, but the writing was still what he saw in his own words.

None of the authors of the NT say God told me "write this down word for word..." OT prophets quote God but that was the ancient style, they used to make up quotes as they believed someone would have said something.

Even the NT writers do that when they quote Jesus. We know none of the disciples was next to Pilate when Jesus was talking to him, or in the Sanhedrin meeting when Jesus was brought to them, or at the Cross, yet all of them give explicit quotes in red as if they were.

Let's not fall for superstition and keep faith as faith instead of some Gnostic quasi knowledge like the Protestants.

The expression “God speaks through the prophets” is not familiar to you? It is in the creed

Yes, in revealing to them the oracles of God, especially of things to come—prophesies; not dictating, word for word, what's in the Bible. In other words: God reveals the outcome, and the prophets report the news in their own words and style.

To the believers, the outcome is a foregone concusion, but the word-by-word account of the individual author are not God's own words or immune from human error.

Come on Alex, you are beginning to sound more like a Protestant then a Catholic, cherry-picking a word here and a word there and completely missing their meaning—or the message for that matter. Again, just because the prophets "quote" God doesn't mean they quote God!

It was the ancient style of writing to make up quotes according to what the author believed the person quoted would have said. I gave you examples from the NT where authors are quoting Jesus and we know that none of the disciples were present to witness exactly what was said.

In fact, different authors quoting the same event say different, even divergent things because of that. +Matthew would have been a witness, yet he uses the material written by +Mark who was not. And +Luke wasn't a witness either and he borrowed from +Mark, but unlike +Matthew, he ad libs a great deal. And +John, who would also have been a witness, writes something that doesn't even resembles anything written in the Synoptic Gospels.

It doesn't matter if the Sermon on the Mount according to +Matthew differs from the one accoridng to +Luke. If we look at them word-by-word, we must conclude that one is wrong. But if you look at the message of the Sermon, as reported by either author, the message is the same. In this case, the truth is not in the details!

You can't read the Bible literally, Alex, but that is precisely where the idea that every word in it is God's own leads you. Then the Bible becomes God, and you become a Protestant.

The ancient writers used what we now call "poetic license," which means you have to concentrate on the message and not the literal story.

dictating, word for word

When the word was indeed chosen by the inspired author, and we understand the original intent of the choice of that word, that word is chosen without error. That is the only logical meaning of "God-breathed", or "inspired", as Pope Leo shows.

It is possible for several textually different narratives to exist and for them all to be inerrant in that sense. In fact, the multiplicity of views on the events and teachings during the ministry of Christ on earth is in itself a divinely dictated feature of the scriptures.

"Protestantism" is neither here or there on that score. Some prefer literalism in its true and Catholic sense, -- which does not exclude metaphorical language, hyperbole and allegory, when that is what the inspired author intended. If they do, good for them, that would be among the things the Protestants got right. Others are hyper-literalists, especially as concerns the Old Testament, and their interpretation is in error. Some are champions of every "dynamic" abomination that passes along as scripture translated. Very many would agree with you that it only the message that counts, not the wording, and disagree with me. Let us argue like adults please, and not by name-calling.

***How do you know the Church interpretation is not the original intent of the inspired author? As Leo XIII teaches, the apparent error is in the reader, not in the writer.***

Let us differentiate between intent and achievement. The OT is chock full of the Jews misunderstanding God, based upon the revelation of Jesus. The reason that Jesus invested so much time and effort upon creating the Church is that this is the entity upon Earth that is intended to be the teaching authority.

Remember that the current NT did not exist except as some of many that gradually went into circulation in the first three centuries. The Church formulated doctrine ahead of the NT compilation. And that is from the original documents that were copied and copied and copied somewhat inaccurately.

That does not even include the deliberate alteration of the NT that occurred over time, both in the pre Nicene era and in the post Nicene era. Look at the English translations that became a travesty of understanding of Scripture. Even the NAB has not escaped the liberal alteration, although it is the Church’s interpretation that saves it.

***The expression “God speaks through the prophets” is not familiar to you? It is in the creed
Yes, in revealing to them the oracles of God, especially of things to come—prophesies; not dictating, word for word, what’s in the Bible. In other words: God reveals the outcome, and the prophets report the news in their own words and style.

To the believers, the outcome is a foregone concusion, but the word-by-word account of the individual author are not God’s own words or immune from human error.***

Not a bad analogy. The prophets are reporters, as it were.

***In fact, different authors quoting the same event say different, even divergent things because of that. +Matthew would have been a witness, yet he uses the material written by +Mark who was not. And +Luke wasn’t a witness either and he borrowed from +Mark, but unlike +Matthew, he ad libs a great deal. And +John, who would also have been a witness, writes something that doesn’t even resembles anything written in the Synoptic Gospels.

It doesn’t matter if the Sermon on the Mount according to +Matthew differs from the one accoridng to +Luke. If we look at them word-by-word, we must conclude that one is wrong. But if you look at the message of the Sermon, as reported by either author, the message is the same. In this case, the truth is not in the details!

You can’t read the Bible literally, Alex, but that is precisely where the idea that every word in it is God’s own leads you. Then the Bible becomes God, and you become a Protestant.

The ancient writers used what we now call “poetic license,” which means you have to concentrate on the message and not the literal story.***

Which is why the teaching authority of the Church is so important.

***I agree with your post in its entirety. You list numerous human errors of copying and interpretation. They do not speak to the original intent of the inspired author.***

Very good. We must remember though, that we finite humans are attempting to describe infinite God with finite understanding and language. Boy, do we fall short.

***Regarding “God speaking through prophets” I was merely pointing out that to say, with Leo XIII, “God utters” is nothing close to “Protestant nonsense”.***

There is a long way between ‘God utters’ and ‘God dictates’. The difference is in kosta’s excellent classification of the inspired as reporters. They tell us what they know in their own words and understandings. The Day of Resurrection is a case in point. The Sermons is another. In both examples, the ‘eyewitness account’ would have landed the eyewitness in the hoosegow because the details are so different. But the message is the same. And that is what the Church has the authority and responsibility to handle.

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.