27 NT Books - How do you know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecone137
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
Because it wasn’t done by consensus. Some authority declared the canon of Scripture to be “opened”. That authority declared these specific 27 books to be Scripture, and those hundreds of other potential bible books to be non-Scriptural. Then that authority declared the canon to be “closed”(!)
This probably wasn’t the majority view. Many Christian scholars held other books to be inspired. Many Christian communities used other books in their worship. You might argue that groups like the Gnostics don’t count, because they were heretics. But the Gnostics didn’t call themselves heretics, they called themselves Christians, and by their canons, the Gospel of Mark, or Athanasius, or you and me, would all be heretics.

A list of books that Athanasius considered inspired in a letter, proves nothing, because other people wrote letters calling different books inspired, and others had councils “proving” different canons. So it wasn’t so much Athanasius himself, or the 2 councils that are usually credited as identifying what we (after the fact) consider the right canon. There was an authority that chose to rely on this scholar and these councils rather than that other scholar, and those other councils. If the canon was chosen by “consensus”, the NT canon would be 270 books, not 27. Think about the church committees you have served on. Can you imagine a consensus narrowing down to a shockingly small NT canon that we have? Can you imagine consensus closing the canon, forever?

If “consensus” is the key, then some might say consensus now can reopen the canon, today. In fact, some people** are ** saying and doing exactly that. Some groups are quietly introducing some new gospels, epistles, etc - all by consensus.
Click to expand...
What major Church’s are calling for a change to the NT?
 
SteveVH said:
No major faith communities that I know of. They all accept the Catholic Church’s judgment, even if they don’t admit it.
Click to expand...
I can’t personally think of any books to add or take away. Which ones would you remove if the CC hadn’t told you which ones to accept? (or add, and why)?
 
dronald said:
I can’t personally think of any books to add or take away. Which ones would you remove if the CC hadn’t told you which ones to accept? (or add, and why)?
Click to expand...
I would never make that judgment. I have no idea why the Shepherd of Hermas was not included. I have no idea why Philemon was included. Whether or not a text should or should not be included is not up to the individual opinions of the faithful. Christ started a Church and gave that Church unprecedented authority. He did not give me that authority. I submit to the judgment of the Church.
 
commenter said:
Because it wasn’t done by consensus. Some authority declared the canon of Scripture to be “opened”. That authority declared these specific 27 books to be Scripture, and those hundreds of other potential bible books to be non-Scriptural. Then that authority declared the canon to be “closed”(!)
This probably wasn’t the majority view. Many Christian scholars held other books to be inspired. Many Christian communities used other books in their worship. You might argue that groups like the Gnostics don’t count, because they were heretics. But the Gnostics didn’t call themselves heretics, they called themselves Christians, and by their canons, the Gospel of Mark, or Athanasius, or you and me, would all be heretics.

A list of books that Athanasius considered inspired in a letter, proves nothing, because other people wrote letters calling different books inspired, and others had councils “proving” different canons. So it wasn’t so much Athanasius himself, or the 2 councils that are usually credited as identifying what we (after the fact) consider the right canon. There was an authority that chose to rely on this scholar and these councils rather than that other scholar, and those other councils. If the canon was chosen by “consensus”, the NT canon would be 270 books, not 27. Think about the church committees you have served on. Can you imagine a consensus narrowing down to a shockingly small NT canon that we have? Can you imagine consensus closing the canon, forever?

If “consensus” is the key, then some might say consensus now can reopen the canon, today. In fact, some people** are ** saying and doing exactly that. Some groups are quietly introducing some new gospels, epistles, etc - all by consensus.
Click to expand...
How did old Athanasius know what books were scripture then? What authority commanded him to accept them?
 
dronald said:
What major Church’s are calling for a change to the NT?
Click to expand...
Check out “A New New Testament” (not that I am in any way endorsing it). I am interested in the committee that voted(!) on which books should be added(!). They added 10, for now, which they put not in an appendix, but inserted right alongside the traditional 27. I think future editions of this book, or other bibles, will add different “scriptures”. “A New New Testament” first edition has not - yet - dropped any of the traditional 27, but highly criticized their excessive emphasis on the crucifixion and salvation, for instance, as well as “sexism”. Other groups (like the Jesus Seminar) are beginning to drop parts or entire Pauline epistles, for instance that deal with slavery or homosexuality.

The Committee, which wrote introductions and commentaries, include 3 apparent baptized Catholics, who have long rejected the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on other things, so why not the canon. Protestant representatives include leaders of some mainline denominations, including Geoffrey Black, President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ.

Actually “A New New Testament” suggests sneaking the new books gradually into church services, so they might have one reading from the Gospel of Mary, along with a familiar one from Hebrews. I don’t know if we will see any one volume of new “scriptures” formally voted on by a denomination. They might prefer some of the books that almost got enough votes to get “canonized” by “A New New Testament” or other scholars.

Some congregations will find the Gospel of Thomas inspiring, and others not. Some will drop Paul, some will keep his epistles. I predict the future choice of “scriptures” will be more a congregational option, or even a personal option. You might find yourself trying to witness to someone using the Gospel of John. They may respond “The Gospel of John inspires you, but not me. It’s not in my Bible. My gospel is the Gospel of Mary, which speaks more to the needs of contemporary women”.
 
commenter said:
Check out “A New New Testament” (not that I am in any way endorsing it). I am interested in the committee that voted(!) on which books should be added(!). They added 10, for now, which they put not in an appendix, but inserted right alongside the traditional 27. I think future editions of this book, or other bibles, will add different “scriptures”. “A New New Testament” first edition has not - yet - dropped any of the traditional 27, but highly criticized their excessive emphasis on the crucifixion and salvation, for instance, as well as “sexism”. Other groups (like the Jesus Seminar) are beginning to drop parts or entire Pauline epistles, for instance that deal with slavery or homosexuality.

The Committee, which wrote introductions and commentaries, include 3 apparent baptized Catholics, who have long rejected the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on other things, so why not the canon. Protestant representatives include leaders of some mainline denominations, including Geoffrey Black, President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ.

Actually “A New New Testament” suggests sneaking the new books gradually into church services, so they might have one reading from the Gospel of Mary, along with a familiar one from Hebrews. I don’t know if we will see any one volume of new “scriptures” formally voted on by a denomination. They might prefer some of the books that almost got enough votes to get “canonized” by “A New New Testament” or other scholars.

Some congregations will find the Gospel of Thomas inspiring, and others not. Some will drop Paul, some will keep his epistles. I predict the future choice of “scriptures” will be more a congregational option, or even a personal option. You might find yourself trying to witness to someone using the Gospel of John. They may respond “The Gospel of John inspires you, but not me. It’s not in my Bible. My gospel is the Gospel of Mary, which speaks more to the needs of contemporary women”.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the Gnostics. They just won’t seem to go away. Thank God they are an extreme minority.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
How did old Athanasius know what books were scripture then? What authority commanded him to accept them?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he trusted the judgement of the church and those before him to determine such matters? By church I mean those authorities closest to him that had the most influence on him, be it his own spiritual Mentor Alexander or the other fathers and teachers he had studied (Origen and others I do not know of).
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Perhaps he trusted the judgement of the church and those before him to determine such matters? By church I mean those authorities closest to him that had the most influence on him, be it his own spiritual Mentor Alexander or the other fathers and teachers he had studied (Origen and others I do not know of).
Click to expand...
I think that’s likely. The church long knew what was or wasn’t scripture at least by Athanasius’ time. He was writing a few decades before the pope or magisterium made any ruling on the matter. How did he know that the 27 books of the NT were scripture without the pope or council to tell him so?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
I think that’s likely. The church long knew what was or wasn’t scripture at least by Athanasius’ time. He was writing a few decades before the pope or magisterium made any ruling on the matter. How did he know that the 27 books of the NT were scripture without the pope or council to tell him so?
Click to expand...
When you say the “church long knew” keep in mind much, probably most, of “the church” long “knew” different books were inspired, not these 27. The real question is how do we know Athanasius chose the right books at all? Who’s to say that some other scholar, whose list had different books, was not more right than Athansius? Part of the Church was Catholic, part was Gnostic, along with several other Christian theologies, and multiple canons. The Catholics - those united with the Magisterium, and in time, its canon - overcame the other Christianities. Those other Christian movements and their canons faded away, so the Catholics, and the Magisterium, and the Magisterium’s canon, were the only ones left standing.

Today some are saying the wrong side won. If you reject the Magisterium, it’s time, finally, to reject its canon. So the other “scriptures” are promoted now, far more than before, by powerful people. It’s going to be harder now for Christians who reject the Magisterium to hold onto the traditional canon, which was chosen by…consensus? Consensus of who?
If you accept the Magisterium, you are united with Athanasius, with the Popes who influenced him and were influenced by him, and with Pope Francis. The biggest challenge facing the popes in the future may well be defending the canon.
 
thecone137 said:
This brings to mind the question: If the Holy Spirit guided Athanasius to accurately represent the NT canon, is it logically coherent to hold that the Holy Spirit did not guide Athanasius in respects to his beliefs on the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is: the two events are parallel, not interdependent, and so a general claim that “If he was right about this, he must have been right about that” potentially leads to declaring St. Athanasius to have been infallible. Further, divine intervention is not necessary for (most) humans to be correct: we can describe Plato as having been right about some things, too, and that does not make him generally reliable.
 
Mystophilus said:
Yes, it is: the two events are parallel, not interdependent, and so a general claim that “If he was right about this, he must have been right about that” potentially leads to declaring St. Athanasius to have been infallible. Further, divine intervention is not necessary for (most) humans to be correct: we can describe Plato as having been right about some things, too, and that does not make him generally reliable.
Click to expand...
You are assuming (hoping) that we know Athanasius, and other like minded people, were right about these books belonging in the canon, and that other ancient, and some modern Christians, are all wrong when they try to put other books in the canon. Without the Magisterium, how can you know the right books are in our Bibles today?

With the Magisterium, we can be confident that these 27 books were and are the right ones, and that canons proposed by other Christian scholars (ancient and modern) are not valid.
 
Mystophilus said:
Yes, it is: the two events are parallel, not interdependent, and so a general claim that “If he was right about this, he must have been right about that” potentially leads to declaring St. Athanasius to have been infallible. Further, divine intervention is not necessary for (most) humans to be correct: we can describe Plato as having been right about some things, too, and that does not make him generally reliable.
Click to expand...
But then doesn’t the judgment become somewhat arbitrary? In other words, on what basis would one have to say that Athanasius was right on the canon but wrong on the Eucharist other than because that determination agrees with his or her pre-conceived theology?
 
dronald said:
What major Church’s are calling for a change to the NT?
Click to expand...
I have read on individual protestant posters here who do not believe some NT books should be in the Bible…so go figure that out…🤷
 
Mystophilus said:
Yes, it is: the two events are parallel, not interdependent, and so a general claim that “If he was right about this, he must have been right about that” potentially leads to declaring St. Athanasius to have been infallible. Further, divine intervention is not necessary for (most) humans to be correct: we can describe Plato as having been right about some things, too, and that does not make him generally reliable.
Click to expand...
How are you defining infallible because in Catholicism, it has to meet certain criteria? Not everything the Pope says is infallible it is limited to faith and morals, the magisterium when all Bishops and the Holy Father are in agreement on a faith or morals become infallible. on their own the Bishops cannot be infallible. The Pope has the singular privilege of declaring something infallible on his own as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is protected from declaring something false, ex-cathedra has been used so infrequently in the past 2000 years, they usually convene councils or the holy father polls his bishops to see if they are all in agreement. John Paul II had to poll them all for something, I don’t remember what it was about though. Infallibility does not extend to local priests, religious, or the laity although now a days by the way they act the laity seems to think they have this privilege.
 
pablope said:
I have read on individual protestant posters here who do not believe some NT books should be in the Bible…so go figure that out…🤷
Click to expand...
Really? I would love to on what grounds? The canon has been closed since the 400s, what insight do they think they have now, especially since Protestantism started 1100 after the canon was closed. I would love for one of them to tell me how Saint Paul’s letters made it in the Bible considering he wrote them 400 years earlier when not a lot of people could read, paper was scarce and the Christians had been persecuted for most of the 400 years.
 
SoMissCatholic said:
But then doesn’t the judgment become somewhat arbitrary? In other words, on what basis would one have to say that Athanasius was right on the canon but wrong on the Eucharist other than because that determination agrees with his or her pre-conceived theology?
Click to expand...
One could do it on the basis of received doctrine: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about communion; this disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was wrong about communion.”

Further, one does not need to agree with both A and B: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about the Eucharist; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

Indeed, that can also apply on the basis of personal study: “My understanding is that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My understanding is that the Eucharist is Y; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

As noted before, the two ideas (the canon and the Eucharist) are parallel, not interdependent, and assent to one view does not logically entail assent to the other.
 
commenter said:
You are assuming (hoping) that we know Athanasius, and other like minded people, were right about these books belonging in the canon, and that other ancient, and some modern Christians, are all wrong when they try to put other books in the canon. Without the Magisterium, how can you know the right books are in our Bibles today?
Click to expand...
No, I am not assuming or hoping that. I stated that approval of one of his claims did not logically entail approval of the other. I did not say that I approved of either.

Regarding Athanasius’ canon, I do not personally consider the question of his “correctness” in choosing that set to be relevant. He chose that set, that set was reiterated, it became traditional, and it is now the standard set. What makes it important to me is its place in the history of Christianity.

As an Anglican, believing that he had to be correct is one of the many, many things which I am not obliged to do.
With the Magisterium, we can be confident that these 27 books were and are the right ones, and that canons proposed by other Christian scholars (ancient and modern) are not valid.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the Catholic position on this, but I do not share it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top