Replies

From you;

Most would say that it was in the fourth or fifth century that the Catholic Church came up with the New Testament Canon.

Even the brief wiki-skim which you brought contains more than strong hint that is incorrect...and that's without or before sorting out the true identity of just who and what this capital "C" Catholic Church is whom you are talking about, and your usage of the phrase, "came up with".

You should thank us that we, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave you this.

We?

What's this irrational "we" "gave you" business? The writings of the NT were much more imposed upon the Church by the Apostolic writers (and those nearest to themselves and the events of that age) than there necessarily have been anything near to a strict reliance upon later "Holy Spirit guidance" needing to have come down from the heavenlies, or else what's the use of capital "T" tradition?

At this page http://www.bible-researcher.com/barker1.html there relying upon Chapter 2 from The New Testament Speaks, by Glenn W. Barker, William L. Lane, and J. Ramsey Michaels (New York: Harper & Row) scroll down towards near the bottom of the page and view the list of estimated dates for the writings of the 27 books of the NT, under heading of "Pertinent Data on the New Testament Books".

Most of those, as soon as received, were taken as the saying goes today, "as the gospel truth", and then widely shared from very early on, although to establish that beyond any doubt, one does need look upon what later data concerning those writings is available.

But more to the point, YOU had as little to do with formation of canon as anyone alive for the last, very nearly to being 19 full centuries. No other 'Catholic" alive today is owed a plug nickel as far as the present existence of the NT canon goes, either. So just who is the "we" again, which you are talking about? I am as much a part of that same "we" as you are, my FRiend.

Athanasius was not of the Church of Rome, (nor dependent upon Rome for his own authority, be that what it may) but was instead of Alexandria. That bishopric was one of those established by the Apostles directly (or so goes Church traditions concerning the matter) and had never from it's inception been "under" any bishop of Rome.

In other words, the Roman Catholic portion of the Universal Church, had less to do with the formation of the canon than many other portions of the Church, leaving no one today owing the Church of Rome, all these centuries later, much of any "thanks" for the Scriptures themselves.

The greater bulk of what we now know of as the New Testament had been widely accepted and recognized, long before Athanasius himself made his own significant theological contributions -- and also had written detailed listing of what was considered canon in his day, and what was not. Do you know that Athanasius rejected the same OT Apocrypha which the Jews had set aside as not Holy Writ? And that so did Jerome, whom translated the Scriptures into Latin? Would you care to see the proof?

Although there is only some scant evidence Jerome did not translate the books of Apocrypha with his own hand directly, there is abundant evidence he wrote that those writings were not properly, indiscriminately equal the remained of OT canon, but were instead, lesser merely ecclesiastical writings -- fit to be read from in Church, but not for establishment of doctrine.

It's not as if 'Rome' had been sending out messengers with lists of "approved" books bearing Roman Church bishop signature, and thus the matter be forever settled due to some 'air of authority' for Rome itself to have held such a thing.

In fact, in one sense, just that there is not something of authoritative edict having emanated from 'Rome' as it were which unilaterally could have settled the matter, that in itself is a form of evidence against papal "system", as that later came into being, claimed by those of Rome alone to been the way Church polity was from the beginning of the Church.

[again] In other words -- "Rome" as it were, tells lies. Until they are caught. Then they change the story to adjust to the more complete information anyone who challenges the claims which they make can establish to the contrary.

When the newly messaged "story" (which still asserts claims for Rome's singular authority) is presented, it still seems to always-always-always include and that any and all owe that one ecclesiastical community everything. What typically happens then, are the goalposts are once again moved, but only as far as they are forced to be. As soon as the blowback pressure against Romsih apologetic subsides (or they encounter the ignorant, and/or the easily swayed or distracted) again those of Rome play for all the marbles, by whichever rhetorical hook and crook, and massaging of the details, and playing upon emotions (and mind) can be gotten away with. Witnessing this unfold on the pages of FR for many years now -- leaves me frequently --- furious.

From one who knows better as for how the formation progressed, more directly (in scholarly manner) than you, or I, F.F. Bruce says;

"At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' and so on." ...
...By the time of Irenaeus, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church at large that he can refer to it as an established and recognised fact as obvious as the four cardinal points of the compass or the four winds" ...
..."When the four Gospels were gathered together in one volume, it meant the severance of the two parts of Luke's history. When Luke and Acts were thus separated one or two modifications were apparently introduced into the text at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts. Originally Luke seems to have left all mention of the ascension to his second treatise; now the words 'and was carried up into heaven' were added in Luke xxiv. 51, to round off the narrative, and in consequence 'was taken up' was added in Acts i. 2. Thus the inconsistencies which some have detected between the accounts of the ascension in Luke and Acts are most likely due to these adjustments made when the two books were separated from each other.
Acts, however, naturally shared the authority and prestige of the third Gospel, being the work of the same author, and was apparently received as canonical by all except Marcion and his followers. Indeed, Acts occupied a very important place in the New Testament canon, being the pivotal book of the New Testament, as Harnack called it, since it links the Gospels with the Epistles, and, by its record of the conversion, call, and missionary service of Paul, showed clearly how real an apostolic authority lay behind the Pauline Epistles.
The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans,' 'First to the Corinthians,' and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).
The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.

There are earlier lists than Athanasius. In the instances of far earlier lists, some lacked ~only~ Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, and one or a few catholic epistles, but otherwise -- list or mention all of Paul's Epistles, the Gospels (of course) and the book of Acts. The main core as it were, was widely accepted from near or before the end of the first century, with there being some initial, then again later arising suspicions towards that book known as Revelation, and again for some (but not universally all of the Church, spread out as it was) -- no knowledge of some varying few of the much smaller in size, so-called "catholic epistles".

There is also the matter of spurious, later arising works having been accepted for a time by some, but seemingly never universally -- which perhaps is part of why those writings were eventually set aside as being not fully comparable and equal to the rest (not actually Apostolic source) thus not canonical, even though a few of those writings were for a time, to greater and lesser extent utilized.

I will submit that (in my own opinion) the Holy Spirit was likely to have been strongly enough present with those whom either -- never recognized writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas as fully 'canonical' (conceptually speaking), or else later had it dawn upon them that those writings were not of the same nature as is the rest of that which did eventually become known as New Testament, (following Paul's own usage of that term) although any of us today, must for the most part need to guess as for how much, and for whom the Spirit did the guiding, more so than fullest establishment of what had come from Apostolic source (and what had not) needed to have relied upon traditions (as best as those could be discerned) by way of comparing notes as it were, among those of the Church, in order to determine what was handed down had come from widely verified, truly Apostolic source, and what had not.

I ask you -- is there any truly Apostolic writing, attributed to the very same Apostles and their most immediate contemporaries (such as Luke) which was rejected as "not Scripture"?

Since there is not, then that is what I meant, as for what was eventually settled upon but only that which ---as I previously said --- had indeed been imposed upon the Church by the Apostles. That much is inescapable, despite all the small troubles experienced along the way, like Marcion wanting to too severely restrict what had come from Apostolic source, and the Shepherd and the Didache (and some other lesser writings) having been "read in church" and thus recognized by *some* as valid enough and useful, but generally not equal to more direct Apostolic.

Those of Rome today owe these same writers every bit as much as anyone else. Yet ultimately we all owe God for having utilized those men as His own instruments, though if I could in some way directly encounter those whom did labor in the word (and still do to this day, in a manner recognizable to myself as in some way worthy) I will thank those persons, and you can join with myself in doing so, or not. That last part is up to you to determine for yourself.

For those of the RCC whom today can read the greater portions of what is referred to as the "Early Church Fathers" more entirely in context -- one can thank a group of (chiefly) Protestants.

Go to New Advent, on most any page where there are "Ante Nicene, and Post Nicene Fathers" quoted, and the source for where those were obtained, in English, leads to the assemblage of translations put together by Philip Schaff, A.C. Coxe and other men who's names I cannot at the moment recall.

Check who the translators were --- and you will find a small collection of Protestant scholars of the latter 19th century.

As for Scripture itself;
If not for the Protestant Reformation, English language bibles would most likely still remain very difficult to come by, if available at all.

The first English translations, when those found by Roman Catholic authorities, were most often burned, other than primitive, partial portions of Scripture, which prior to Wycliffe & Tyndale, was that which had been translated by priests for their own uses, and what small portions could be obtained in Brevaries and Psalters. There were not English translation available, particularly fully extant English translation of the bible which one could personally possess.

If you desire thanks be offered for yourself being able to read the Scriptures in English, then you should thank the Reformers who risked their own lives to open the Scriptures up to English language recipients ...and in the instance of Tyndale, gave his own life, for his translation work was very much part of why he was burned at the stake (the RCC of his day HATED it, and hated Tyndale).

That said -- would it make any sense for you to thank some random Protestant for what Wycliffe and Tyndale helped bring into the world?

It would not seem necessary, to me.

But I'm supposed to thank a bunch of Roman Catholics alive today for Scripture -- which THAT church for a period of many hundreds of years, actively suppressed possession of Scripture in "vulgar tongue", or else much discouraged it?

No sir, I will offer my thanks to those of the earliest centuries most foremost, in times long before any pope of Rome began to get away with throwing his own weight around.

To those whom would insist (if they pushed it far enough) that I myself and others submit in some manner to themselves over this --- I'd be more than willing to throw them around, like up against the wall, or overboard, and they could bloody well swim for it.

Understand, amigo?