This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?
I would point to an excellent article by B.B. Warfield. Below is an excerpt:
This is the testimony of all the early witnesses - even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, "The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs" (Beni. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the "work and word" of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles, "shall be written in the Holy Books," i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a "bishop" of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by "sinking himself deeper" into the same "Book" which contained the Law of Moses ("Babl. Shabbath," 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of "New Books" (Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the "Oracles" of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or "Scriptures" (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the "Holy Books" or "Bible" (Testt. XII. Patt.).
...
The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.
The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament By B.B. Warfield
"The Church always had the scriptures and KNEW what the scriptures were. The problem was that there were Gnostic writings.
This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?"
I for one would not disagree at all. As with every Council, what was being done was deliberation to come to agreement and to formally declare on what the Church already knew.
This does not, though, mean that every Christian, every local Church, etc... knew self-evidently on the exact canon, or that individual Christians or clergy weren't deceived by Gnostic writings. Those books were always the real and only Scripture, but not all in the Church discerned them as such.
It is clear that the Gnostic bit is probably overplayed, since there is no evidence from the lists that we have available to us that any Gnostic books were ever considered by anyone of importance in the "official" Church to be Scriptural. Individual Christians may have been deceived or confused, and thus formal declarations on the canon would be helpful.
I will point out that the agreement on which books were Scriptural was *not* very controversial, since no Ecumenical Council ever had to decide on it. All formal declarations came from local councils or individual Fathers. Based on that evidence, I would largely agree that for the most part, the Church was probably largely in agreement from quite early times, without the need for formal declarations, on what was Scripture and what was not.
There was also the practical issue that as liturgical life matured, it was useful for an orderly and complete liturgical reading of the Scriptures to define exactly which books should be read in public in church.
Again, had this been a major issue that was hard to figure out, it would have been addressed by an Ecumenical Council.
They did not have the New Testament until at least 20 years later - and in bits and pieces. I doubt that every community had a copy of every letter we now call the "NT" until many years later. As you may know, churches were ALSO reading orthodox writings such as the First Letter of Clement to Rome within the Liturgy that WE LATER would not call Scripture. Many communities thought of this writing as Scripture and read it during Mass. Thus, they had Scriptures along with other writings (some Gnostic, others orthodox). There was no distinction or definition for many years.
This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?
Yes, the Church CONFIRMS that Scripture, knowing full well what orthodoxy is - within their teachings - and were able to identify Scripture and what was not Scripture. Thus, the Church did not form it (although you COULD say that, since the Apostles were part of the Church) but identify it they did. However, I must again say that "Scripture" was not so clear cut. Some communities disagreed on the "status" of a particular writing. Thus, not everyone thought that James or Revelation was Scripture, while some thought that Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians WAS. "Scripture" was much in flux for several hundred years.
Where FK and I disagree, however, is that a bishop would read a given writing and would recognize its orthodoxy based upon what they were taught. It wasn't the other way around. There was no "marking" on the scroll that identified something as Scripture! It was only declared Scripture when properly recognized. The Canon didn't form itself! The Apostolic Teaching came first to the Christians. When Paul commissioned Titus and Timothy, did he give them a bible or did he give them a body of teachings that Paul preached to them? This Body was the paradigm for the future successors, the Bishops, to use for determining what WAS Scripture. According to FK, this is not how the formation of the Bible came to be. Basically, the Church was sitting down passively as God pointed a magic finger to each scroll, and a bishop would then put it into the pile labeled "future Bible". The other pile would be labeled "leave out of the future Bible". Thus, the Church, to FK, had no role to play whatsoever, but merely passive.
This is against what the history tells us on how the Scriptures were canonized and how the Gospel was initially given to the Christians.
This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., "ad Philad." 5; ("ad Smyrn." 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (" ad Philad." 6). "When I heard some saying," he writes, "'Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel' on my saying,' It is written.' they answered, 'That is the question.' To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] - by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better," etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the "Gospel"
Mr. Warfield makes the common Protestant error of equating "Gospel" with the written Gospel of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. Thus, when he reads St. Ignatius saying "Gospel", Mr. Warfield thinks he has found proof of some written proto-Bible. This is based on faulty premises. The Scriptures themselves refer to the Gospel as the Good News, whether preached orally or written. The Gospel, then, is merely the Christian proclamation. St. Ignatius does not claim that the written words of the NT are indeed Scripture, although he does quote from them.
He quotes from Matthew and Luke - but only using euphemisms or "cliches", such as "The tree is known by its fruit", or Let him accept it who can" or "In all circumstances be 'wise as a serpent', and perpetually 'harmless as a dove" These are the only three times that St. Ignatius mentions the Gospel of Matthew in his writings. The above are not ringing endorsements for his consideration of the writing as Scripture!!! This is unlike the later writings of St. Ireneaus, who actually says "Scripture" and then quotes it, whether he is quoting OT, NT, or the Deuterocanonicals.
Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it.
That's incorrect. St. Ireneaus himself never mentions James, Hebrews, Philemon, 3 John, Jude, or 2 Peter. The Muratorian Canon, written about 200 AD, does NOT include some of these letters! TWO HUNDRED AD! AND, ADD 1 Peter to the list of "not Scripture"! The NT Deuterocanonicals were not universally accepted, much the same as the OT Deuterocanonicals. Thus, in both cases, the Church made a judgment to include them based on their content - even though some questioned their authorship. Also, note that many of the canons preceding the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included writings that were later NOT determined to be Scriptural, such as the Shepherd of Hermas or First Clement. The Scripture Canon was quite flexible the first several hundred years of Christianity.
I believe you and I, Harley, agree for the most part, on the formation of the Canon. It took years to formulate, and to agree upon completely. The Bible did not form itself. It was the Church, forced by opposing pressures of contraction and expansion (Marcion and the Gnostics) that made the Canon and set it. From now on, no one would come up with a "Gospel of Judas" and claim it was Scripture, OR get rid of parts of the Bible - such as "Wisdom", unless they acted outside of the Church.
Regards
Yes, I fully agree. I do believe that the Apostles taught correctly. When their written works started coming forth, there was already a measure of knowledge against which to judge their authenticity.