Answer this question

[commenter]

Hij,

And isn’t it true , that NT writ was authoritative from the get go, and the first bibles were written without any papal or council (name removed by moderator)ut (Eusebius and Constantine’s bibles ) ? Another words for the most part church oversight (dare i say the H.S.'s guidance) and tradition pretty much had all the books lined up before any council…

Blessings

Re: “the NT writ”, some of the NT was first Spoken Truth, so it was authoritative since first uttered. A template developed of what doctrine was true, based mostly on the oral preaching. Actually, a few templates developed, including the Gnostic Christians, and other Christians. The authority of any one template, of course, depended on the Holy Spirit, and “tradition”.

But how do we, or the ancient Christians, know which thread was in fact guided by the Holy Spirit? They followed the thread led by Peter and his successors. You may not agree that it is provable that they coalesced around that particular Petrine thread (rejecting other threads, all claiming to be apostolic and guided by the H. S.) But they must have coalesced around **one **particular thread, because the early Church emerged as one surviving Christianity, surviving from several rival ones. Scriptures were chosen, or (far more often) rejected, based partly on doctrinal accuracy; accuracy with Catholicism, not accuracy with other Christian isms, which also flourished.

Re: the appeal to “tradition”, the problem is that there were many rival traditions. If you chose the Gnostic Christian scriptures, you find they are reinforced by Gnostic Christian traditions. So some entity must have “canonized” 1% of ancient Christian traditions as reliable Sacred Tradition, rejecting the other 99% as not necessarily false, but at least uncertain. Likely the same agency that canonized the NT scriptures also canonized the NT Sacred Tradition. Protestant writers today keep citing the same “Early Church Fathers”, designated by the Petrine thread, and not others, maybe equally learned.

The finished product (tiny NT canon and tiny Sacred Tradition) does not look like it came out of committee, or consensus, rose up out of “the community” of Christians. It looks like the product of an authoritative hierarchy (some would say authoritarian). It may well be the minority faction - Catholic Christians following the Magisterium - overcame the majority faction of Christians, including Gnostics and others, and imposed their will on the whole.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben, if this is true how do you account for the growing number of NT books bieing usen in the liturgy the first few centuries? Sure the HS spoke His word from the get go and it is, and has always been complete and absolute, but surley you can see through history the church as a whole not all on the same page until the 4th century as what was and what was not inspired from the God in terms of the NT.

Peace!!!

Hi A ,

My point was that it was pretty much settled before the “canonizing” council at end of fourth century or any papal decree. Never intimated it was not a long and slow process of copying and distributing NT books throughout the church kingdom. And yes , decrees and councils may have helped with some of the “fringe” books.Yet I would not say we would have no holy writ but by a pope or council. One can not underestimate the grass roots phenomenon of writ establishment , just like Luther and the reformation.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Re: “the NT writ”, some of the NT was first Spoken Truth, so it was authoritative since first uttered. A template developed of what doctrine was true, based mostly on the oral preaching. Actually, a few templates developed, including the Gnostic Christians, and other Christians. The authority of any one template, of course, depended on the Holy Spirit, and “tradition”.

But how do we, or the ancient Christians, know which thread was in fact guided by the Holy Spirit? They followed the thread led by Peter and his successors. You may not agree that it is provable that they coalesced around that particular Petrine thread (rejecting other threads, all claiming to be apostolic and guided by the H. S.) But they must have coalesced around **one **particular thread, because the early Church emerged as one surviving Christianity, surviving from several rival ones. Scriptures were chosen, or (far more often) rejected, based partly on doctrinal accuracy; accuracy with Catholicism, not accuracy with other Christian isms, which also flourished.

Re: the appeal to “tradition”, the problem is that there were many rival traditions. If you chose the Gnostic Christian scriptures, you find they are reinforced by Gnostic Christian traditions. So some entity must have “canonized” 1% of ancient Christian traditions as reliable Sacred Tradition, rejecting the other 99% as not necessarily false, but at least uncertain. Likely the same agency that canonized the NT scriptures also canonized the NT Sacred Tradition. Protestant writers today keep citing the same “Early Church Fathers”, designated by the Petrine thread, and not others, maybe equally learned.

The finished product (tiny NT canon and tiny Sacred Tradition) does not look like it came out of committee, or consensus, rose up out of “the community” of Christians. It looks like the product of an authoritative hierarchy (some would say authoritarian). It may well be the minority faction - Catholic Christians following the Magisterium - overcame the majority faction of Christians, including Gnostics and others, and imposed their will on the whole.

Hi c,

Interesting to note the problems of “tradition”. Yet Writ is indeed the word of God, and is beyond tradition, as if Truth can be a tradition. The way we carry it can become a tradition.

I would say for sure writing can not contradict it’s oral beginnings. I would say when oral truth bearers put it in writing, that the writing became authoritative on it’s own. I mean Peter would not say, “here is a letter, but it is only authoritative as it is true to what I told you orally”??

Disagree in separating “consensus”, “committee” or the church at large from her authoritative hierarchy, even absolute truth bearing. Indeed Christ is the church’s head, her “bishop”, and is not orphaned. We have our King , even Dictator (quite authoritarian,not a democracy).

Not sure the gnostics were a majority, nor even christian. Don’t think the gnostics claim any genuine apostolic writing, or an immediate disciple(spuriously yes…and yes we judge against them by both oral and written truth.)

Blessings

 

[commenter]

Hi c,

Interesting to note the problems of “tradition”. Yet Writ is indeed the word of God, and is beyond tradition, as if Truth can be a tradition. The way we carry it can become a tradition.

Not sure the gnostics were a majority, nor even christian. Don’t think the gnostics claim any genuine apostolic writing, or an immediate disciple(spuriously yes…and yes we judge against them by both oral and written truth.)

Blessings

**In hindsight, ** we can clearly see the doctrines of the Gnostics were not Christian. But that’s because we grew up accustomed to certain books being canonized, certain traditions being identified as reliable Sacred Tradition (not equal to Scripture, but more reliable than 99% of traditions), certain ancient scholars being labelled as Early Church Fathers, and certain other scholars being labelled as Heretics.

When we take that huge template for granted, it is “obvious” the gnostics, and other ancient Christianities, were wrong. It is obvious their apostolic claims are spurious, just as they considered the Catholic canon, the Catholic apostolic claims, the Catholic template, to be spurious. From their point of view, holding their scriptures in hand, they would be right.

Trust me, I am not trying to turn you into a Bart Ehrman disciple. I would pray he would return to his Evangelical roots.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi A ,

My point was that it was pretty much settled before the “canonizing” council at end of fourth century or any papal decree. Never intimated it was not a long and slow process of copying and distributing NT books throughout the church kingdom. And yes , decrees and councils may have helped with some of the “fringe” books.Yet I would not say we would have no holy writ but by a pope or council. One can not underestimate the grass roots phenomenon of writ establishment , just like Luther and the reformation.

Blessings

But the Church is not saying that the council’s and papal decrees came up with a canon out of thin air. It is Sacred Tradition that the Fathers and Church leaders recognized and relied on to give authoritative pronouncements. And there was also some criteria, I believe, that the Church used to decide what is Scripture and what was not.

Nevertheless, trusting the decrees and judgments of the Church is not opposed to trusting the Holy Spirit and God’s Sovereignty.

 

[adf417]

Hi A ,

My point was that it was pretty much settled before the “canonizing” council at end of fourth century or any papal decree. Never intimated it was not a long and slow process of copying and distributing NT books throughout the church kingdom. And yes , decrees and councils may have helped with some of the “fringe” books.Yet I would not say we would have no holy writ but by a pope or council. One can not underestimate the grass roots phenomenon of writ establishment , just like Luther and the reformation.

Blessings

Greetings Ben,
Everyone agrees that the Holy writings them selves were established, put to writ, by the end of the first century. Moving forward from this point with the evidence of a “growing” number of other books being used in the liturgy proves that your assertion above is flawed. If Holy writ was complete in the first century, the time closest to the apostles and farther away from a time “where the church would have become corrupt”, wouldn’t the church already know what the complete Holy writ is and therefore never allow for the uncontrolled expansion of so many books? The grass roots analogy would only apply to the negitive sence of the growing number of books where maybe the seed anology would better fit to what was already Holy except history tells us the seeds, while planted from the begining, were not yet proclaimed to the faithful. If the long slow process you admit to without an authorty to declare is inevetable to the process of a canon, wouldn’t we see a decressing number of books instead of a growing nmber?

Peace!!!

 

[commenter]

Hi A ,

My point was that it was pretty much settled before the “canonizing” council at end of fourth century or any papal decree. Never intimated it was not a long and slow process of copying and distributing NT books throughout the church kingdom. And yes , decrees and councils may have helped with some of the “fringe” books.Yet I would not say we would have no holy writ but by a pope or council. One can not underestimate the grass roots phenomenon of writ establishment , just like Luther and the reformation.

Blessings

• What would a “grass roots” canon look like? Well, based on my view of “grass roots” consensus developments I have seen in Social Work, in religious organizations, and the community, something like this…

The NT canon would be inclusive, every Christian religious movement in ancient times would have some of their works represented. Certain books, like Mathew, would be designated as very scriptural, while other works, such as the Gospel of Mary, would be labelled somewhat scriptural - but included. Passages offensive to any group, such as the “Judaizers” or other movements, would not be included.

Some passages specifically favorites of Gnostics and smaller Christian movements would be included, but maybe in an appendix, where they would not offend those who disagree. The NT would be 100 books, maybe much larger. It would not be fully “closed” even today, as people would keep lobbying to get their fav books in. There likely would be many NT canons, so you could pick one that has all the stuff you like, and nothing else.

• What would an NT canon look like, if chosen by an accepted hierarchy in place before the NT canon?
  It would be like the one we have.

 

[benhur]

• What would a “grass roots” canon look like? Well, based on my view of “grass roots” consensus developments I have seen in Social Work, in religious organizations, and the community, something like this…

The NT canon would be inclusive, every Christian religious movement in ancient times would have some of their works represented. Certain books, like Mathew, would be designated as very scriptural, while other works, such as the Gospel of Mary, would be labelled somewhat scriptural - but included. Passages offensive to any group, such as the “Judaizers” or other movements, would not be included.

Some passages specifically favorites of Gnostics and smaller Christian movements would be included, but maybe in an appendix, where they would not offend those who disagree. The NT would be 100 books, maybe much larger. It would not be fully “closed” even today, as people would keep lobbying to get their fav books in. There likely would be many NT canons, so you could pick one that has all the stuff you like, and nothing else.

• What would an NT canon look like, if chosen by an accepted hierarchy in place before the NT canon?
  It would be like the one we have.

hi c,

By grass roots I mean all hierarchy except council or papal…they formed the foundation, a concensus, similar to a council.The “church” eventually came to a formidable concensus some time before the council…a27 book NT

Blessings

 

[adf417]

hi c,

By grass roots I mean all hierarchy except council or papal…they formed the foundation, a concensus, similar to a council.The “church” eventually came to a formidable concensus some time before the council…a27 book NT

Blessings

Hi Ben, in light of this post it seems you overlooked my post #26 above. Do you not feel it is worth addressing?

Peace!!!

 

[benhur]

Greetings Ben,
Everyone agrees that the Holy writings them selves were established, put to writ, by the end of the first century. Moving forward from this point with the evidence of a “growing” number of other books being used in the liturgy proves that your assertion above is flawed. If Holy writ was complete in the first century, the time closest to the apostles and farther away from a time “where the church would have become corrupt”, wouldn’t the church already know what the complete Holy writ is and therefore never allow for the uncontrolled expansion of so many books? The grass roots analogy would only apply to the negitive sence of the growing number of books where maybe the seed anology would better fit to what was already Holy except history tells us the seeds, while planted from the begining, were not yet proclaimed to the faithful. If the long slow process you admit to without an authorty to declare is inevetable to the process of a canon, wouldn’t we see a decressing number of books instead of a growing nmber?

Peace!!!

hi a,

What you assert is also a slippery slope. If indeed there was an authoritative hierarchy as today, how did the church allow “other” liturgy to be introduced in the first place? And if they did , how could a perfectly guided church have wrong liturgy, for several centuries ? Were they really in error, reciting what they thought was the Word of God but it was not ?

Actually I am not well versed on extra liturgy that grew into the church , save Rome’s letter to the Corinthians (even there, not sure if it was only read in Corinth or neighboring churches). I am also not sure that only Holy Writ could be used as liturgy, or that one could read what was understood to be writ , supplemented by other holy writings though not as “God breathed”, such as Clement’s letter.

From my understanding the "council’ helped mostly in tying in the peripheral, least widely accepted books, to solidify them to the 27 , and to all churches. That most did accept most of the twenty seven. The twenty seven were all accepted just not to all the geographical areas (not 100%). Likewise spurious books, gnostic books were also almost universally rejected before the council.

I also think the church operated much like the OT and it’s treatment of writ, accepted by tradition (undogmatic in that some could be “peripheral”, or that canonization was not needed…they could be "one’’ even if differing slightly on the exact number of books).

I will accept your (name removed by moderator)ut that some liturgy that was accepted by some, was rechategorized and separated from God breathed writ, though inspired.

My main point is that we have writings that suggest the acceptance of the twenty seven books, and also Eusebius 50 bibles that he made for Constantine, decades before the canonizing council. …And that each church/,city/ province had authoritative hierarchy in its bishops, and that I am not saying grass roots is apart from such authority. Hopefully you can see there was a cohesive element of authority before any council on this matter.

Blessings

 

[adf417]

Greetings Ben, thank you for the reply.

hi a,

What you assert is also a slippery slope. If indeed there was an authoritative hierarchy as today, how did the church allow “other” liturgy to be introduced in the first place? And if they did , how could a perfectly guided church have wrong liturgy, for several centuries ? Were they really in error, reciting what they thought was the Word of God but it was not ?

You are describing the need for the development of doctrine. The best place for any Christian is to see this development is in the early councils begining 325 with Nicaea. Do you not realize how much of the Church was becoming Arian? Do you not think the council of Nicaea was necessary to prevent the growth of this particular heresy? But even while our hind site is 20/20 on this issue and we can see the need for the council of Nicaea that doesn’t mean the council was absolutely mandatory. Im sure God could have come up with other means to pronounce this doctrine, but he didn’t, and confusion in his church was running amuck. BTW, this heresy was fought without the clear 27 book canon you have today and just a few years later, enter a similar conundrum within the Church, the canon itself.

Actually I am not well versed on extra liturgy that grew into the church , save Rome’s letter to the Corinthians (even there, not sure if it was only read in Corinth or neighboring churches). I am also not sure that only Holy Writ could be used as liturgy, or that one could read what was understood to be writ , supplemented by other holy writings though not as “God breathed”, such as Clement’s letter.

These “not sure” statments dont have to be such. - He, the Truth, will be with us till the end of time.

From my understanding the "council’ helped mostly in tying in the peripheral, least widely accepted books, to solidify them to the 27 , and to all churches. That most did accept

most

of the twenty seven. The twenty seven were all accepted just not to all the geographical areas (not 100%). Likewise spurious books, gnostic books were also almost universally rejected before the council.

Keyword bolded above. Would you consider any church today to be a part of the body of Christ while professing only 26 books of our NT as inspired?

I believe you are being a bit misleading in the above statment Ben when you say “the twenty seven books were ALL accepted”. Collectively yes, but in each geographical area not necessarly, hense the reason for a council.

I also think the church operated much like the OT and it’s treatment of writ, accepted by tradition (undogmatic in that some could be “peripheral”, or that canonization was not needed…they could be "one’’ even if differing slightly on the exact number of books).

Not according to Acts 15. If this is true we would all still have to be circumcised.

I have a hard time believing you think the last part of your statment above to be true if there were a church today professing only 23 books of your NT to be inspired and the other 4 not. I dont think you actually believe that church could be considered to be “one” with your church, do you?

I will accept your (name removed by moderator)ut that some liturgy that was accepted by some, was rechategorized and separated from God breathed writ, though inspired.

My main point is that we have writings that suggest the acceptance of the twenty seven books, and also Eusebius 50 bibles that he made for Constantine, decades before the canonizing council. …And that each church/,city/ province had authoritative hierarchy in its bishops, and that I am not saying grass roots is apart from such authority. Hopefully you can see there was a cohesive element of authority before any council on this matter.

If this were true then right out of the gate, while the Word was most fresh on the minds of the Apostles, within the first couple years of the death of Christ, they would have wrote the books we know today as NT scripture, and they would have pronounced which books were and were not within this collection. They certainly would not have waited 60 years, after many of the Apostles have died.

The true “cohesive element of authority” was diminishing well before Holy Writ was even complete. Why was this “cohesive element of authority” not more clear when the Apostles were alive? Hopefully you can see that any subsequent “cohesive element of authority” could only come from unity within His Body in His time as we see in the example in Acts 15.

Peace be with you!!!

 

[benhur]

You are describing the need for the development of doctrine.

Hia,

Actually we were talking about liturgy in specific, and in particular to your claim that the early church increased it’s use of “non inspired” books as time went on. The development of Christology though related is another topic…

BTW, this heresy was fought without the clear 27 book canon you have today and just a few years later, enter a similar conundrum within the Church, the canon itself.

I am pretty sure Arianism was fought quite heavily with Writ, both before, during, and after the council and probably by the twenty seven books (especially by Athanasius)

These “not sure” statements don’t have to be such. - He, the Truth, will be with us till the end of time.

The “not sure” is confined to historical knowledge of non inspired writings being used in liturgy during said time. Is such information in your catechism ?

Keyword bolded above. Would you consider any church today to be a part of the body of Christ while professing only 26 books of our NT as inspired?

We are talking about history, not present day “tradition”. I do not think we would consider a church "false’ in early history for a less than 27 book canon. I will repeat that tradition shows that by Council at Nicea the 27 books were held by most churches, or that most of the books were held by all churches.

Collectively yes, but in each geographical area not necessarily, hence the reason for a council.

agree…pretty much what I was trying to say and perhaps you worded it better.

Not according to Acts 15. If this is true we would all still have to be circumcised.

Not sure what this has to do with the gradual acceptance of the twenty seven books by early or mid 4th century.

The true “cohesive element of authority” was diminishing well before Holy Writ was even complete. Why was this “cohesive element of authority” not more clear when the Apostles were alive? Hopefully you can see that any subsequent “cohesive element of authority” could only come from unity within His Body in His time as we see in the example in Acts 15.

I think you imbalance a correct judgement of leadership and authority by the level of obedience, or unity, or lack of sin in this area.

You can do everything right as a church and still have sinful disunity , even schism.

And I was referencing this topic *only *when speaking of the cohesive unity that helped develop the tradition of the twenty seven books before, and up to the council.

Blessings

 

[adf417]

Greetings Ben,

Hia,

Actually we were talking about liturgy in specific, and in particular to your claim that the early church increased it’s use of “non inspired” books as time went on. The development of Christology though related is another topic…

It was an answer to your question…“If indeed there was an authoritative hierarchy as today, how did the church allow “other” liturgy to be introduced in the first place?” And is completely related to our conversation. If you dont see the connection then

I am pretty sure Arianism was fought quite heavily with Writ, both before, during, and after the council and probably by the twenty seven books (especially by Athanasius)

As i already said we all know Holy Writ had been written well before this time and was available and being used, but history tells us that not only the 27 books were being used but many other and these other books were considered inspired by many even though they weren’t - the point of stating “the 27 book canon you have today”. In the Church’s mind there was more than 27 books at the time.

The “not sure” is confined to historical knowledge of non inspired writings being used in liturgy during said time. Is such information in your catechism ?

Not sure what you are asking. It is historical fact that there were non-inspired writings being used in the early liturgy. This can be seen in many of the early fathers writings as to what they each considered to be inspired and what they were reading in their liturgies.

We are talking about history, not present day “tradition”. I do not think we would consider a church "false’ in early history for a less than 27 book canon. I will repeat that tradition shows that by Council at Nicea the 27 books were held by most churches, or that most of the books were held by all churches.

Again, “most of the books were held by all churches” is the problem. This is the elephant and he is sitting so close he is blocking your view.

“Most” would never be good enough for you and me today Ben and it wasn’t good enough for the church in the 4th century either. Something had to be done.

agree…pretty much what I was trying to say and perhaps you worded it better.

.

Not sure what this has to do with the gradual acceptance of the twenty seven books by early or mid 4th century.

Just that it gives us a biblical proof text as to needs of further clarification of doctrins by the church.

I think you imbalance a correct judgement of leadership and authority by the level of obedience, or unity, or lack of sin in this area.

You can do everything right as a church and still have sinful disunity , even schism.

And I was referencing this topic *only *when speaking of the cohesive unity that helped develop the tradition of the twenty seven books before, and up to the council.

I was just trying to remind you that the cohesive element of authority is the church and that we can visually see its actions working in Acts 15. But just because the Holy Writ was finished being recorded in 1st century giving us no “inspired recording” of what is inspired recordings, does not mean the Holy Spirit left us orphans. It only means the writings came first then the clarification of those writings later by the same cohesive element of authority, guided by the Holy Spirit as he did in Acts 15.

Jesus certainly could have dealt with the circumcision issue directly before he was crucified not burden the Apostles with it but he didn’t. This is also true with the canon.

I believe the strongest evedence we have for the need of a church council regarding the canon is the length of time it took the apostles to put to writ the Holy Words. This time frame, or lack of urgency in my opinion, is huge when it comes to showing the Apostles viewpoint of the importance of their writings in relationship to a spacific canon. It is obvious to me they did not see the need themselves for a NT canon at that time, just like they did not see the need for a doctrine of circumcisiom on the eavening before their get together in Acts 15.

Peace!!!

 

[Vonsalza]

Hi Michael

Just browsing the thread and saw this.

I would very, very, VERY strongly recommend against revealing anyone’s personal information like real names on an internet forum the whole world can see.

If they would like to do that for themselves, wonderful. But don’t do it for them, even if you “know” they’re fine with it.

 

[Vonsalza]

hi c,

By grass roots I mean all hierarchy except council or papal…they formed the foundation, a concensus, similar to a council.The “church” eventually came to a formidable concensus some time before the council…a27 book NT

Blessings

Interesting that my Catholic, Orthodox and Ethiopian Bibles have a different number of books in them. They were all three printed in the last 10 years.

The claim of “consensus” is a little weaker than imagined. I suppose one that forwards that argument somehow suggests that OT books “count less”?

 

[benhur]

Interesting that my Catholic, Orthodox and Ethiopian Bibles have a different number of books in them. They were all three printed in the last 10 years.

The claim of “consensus” is a little weaker than imagined. I suppose one that forwards that argument somehow suggests that OT books “count less”?

Hi V,

I just had to re look the definition of consensus, and it fits my point. Consensus is not all, or 100% , but is *most *, or a general agreement.

The term was applied to NT formation. I suppose OT is similar,though there are differences among Hebrew copies and Septuagint. But again NT and OT are separate issues, sharing similar formation with some differences however.

It could be said there is a consensus for approximately the 39 OT books, with approximately 7 other books having two camps, as either God breathed or not. The church as whole has this “general agreement”.

Blessings

PS…I do not see calling two books one or vice versa a problem for the above, I was mostly referencing totally different wrings,authors.

 

[commenter]

Hia,

I am pretty sure Arianism was fought quite heavily with Writ, both before, during, and after the council and probably by the twenty seven books (especially by Athanasius)

I noticed you capitalized the first letter in Writ. I wish all Christians would have the same reverence for the authority of God’s Word!

When I try to put myself into the mindset of the early Christians, I try not to project backwards attitudes which developed later, in terms of what, at that time, was somewhat authoritative, and what was supremely authoritative, or what we - **after ******the ****fact, call “Writ”.

In other words, there must have been a time when Christians not only were unsure which books were in the NT, they had no concept at all that a NT ought to exist, let alone “Writ” with a capital W, let alone that this “Writ” was something authoritative that could be used quite heavily to fight arguments.

The idea that, by consensus, **of **course, a New Testament **obviously **ought to exist, and that consensus can lead early Christians, and us to the right books to fit that canon, and their proper authority as Writ, is an anachronism.

Does all this:

• Outrageous, incredible innovation of a “New Testament”!
• Putting the capital W in Writ, such as it can authoritatively be used as persuasive;
• Designation of an “Old Testament” as also Writ, except as superceded by the Innovation;
• Choosing an incredibly short, 27 book canon for the Innovation;
• Closing the canon

…sound like something that arose out of consensus,

• or -
  something that came from a centralized hierarchy that itself was already recognized as extremely authoritative?

 

[JonNC]

Just browsing the thread and saw this.

I would very, very, VERY strongly recommend against revealing anyone’s personal information like real names on an internet forum the whole world can see.

If they would like to do that for themselves, wonderful. But don’t do it for them, even if you “know” they’re fine with it.

I’m not sure I understand how this is related to the post you responded to

 

[benhur]

When I try to put myself into the mindset of the early Christians, I try not to project backwards attitudes which developed later, in terms of what, at that time, was somewhat authoritative, and what was supremely authoritative, or what we - **after ******the ****fact, call “Writ”.

Hic,

Agree.

What we do have is writings of those times speaking for their times and how they viewed their holy writings. For a later example, we have Jerome and his commentary prefacing many of the books. He speaks for the time,as to which books were more widely accepted and which were not.

In other words, there must have been a time when Christians not only were unsure which books were in the NT, they had no concept at all that a NT ought to exist, let alone “Writ” with a capital W, let alone that this “Writ” was something authoritative that could be used quite heavily to fight arguments.

Agree, but might be hypertechnical here. For sure they viewed at least the Hebrew bible and or Septuagint counterpart. They then speak of "holy scriptures’’ in same vain , or as an addition to Moses to Micah, from some of the writers themselves. They did not use term "bible’ or OT/NT. Instead it was Law and the Prophets , and the Gospel and the Apostles, and “scriptures”.

We also know that these "scriptures’’ were enough to die for. We know they were also sought after to burn by civil authorities. We know copies were made to be disseminated thruout the churches. We know both heretics and orthodox defense used these writings for their cause, that the writings were “canon”, or “written rule of faith”. We know the church used the rule of apostolic origin as main criterion. I think Tertullian is the first to use the term “New Testament” (200 AD ?). Origen had quotations from almost twenty of the books and speaks of 27 books and discusses the level of the acceptance of some of the books(much like Jerome.Luther). and this almost 150 years before canonizing council. Finally Eusebius made 50 bibles for Constantine, and writes of some of the history we have been talking about ,as to “bible” formation, a generation or two before council.

The idea that, by consensus, **of **course, a New Testament **obviously **ought to exist, and that consensus can lead early Christians, and us to the right books to fit that canon, and their proper authority as Writ, is an anachronism.

what word would you choose, to define how the church and its leaders came to accept, preserve , and teach from the scriptures, before any council ?

.sound like something that arose out of consensus,

• or -
  something that came from a centralized hierarchy that itself was already recognized as extremely authoritative?

Now some would say the latter is an anachronism.

I would only add that can it not be a bit of both, ? (that indeed the council, an ultimate institutional act, is your centralized hierarchy)

Blessings

 

[commenter]

Hic,

We also know that these "scriptures’’ were enough to die for. We know they were also sought after to burn by civil authorities. We know copies were made to be disseminated thruout the churches. We know both heretics and orthodox defense used these writings for their cause, that the writings were “canon”, or “written rule of faith”. We know the church used the rule of apostolic origin as main criterion. I think Tertullian is the first to use the term “New Testament” (200 AD ?). Origen had quotations from almost twenty of the books and speaks of 27 books and discusses the level of the acceptance of some of the books(much like Jerome.Luther). and this almost 150 years before canonizing council. Finally Eusebius made 50 bibles for Constantine, and writes of some of the history we have been talking about ,as to “bible” formation, a generation or two before council.

what word would you choose, to define how the church and its leaders came to accept, preserve , and teach from the scriptures, before any council ?
Now some would say the latter is an anachronism.

I would only add that can it not be a bit of both, ? (that indeed the council, an ultimate institutional act, is your centralized hierarchy)

Blessings

History is written by the winners. In this case, the ancient Catholics.

The problem is that the people **we **call “orthodox Christians” were surrounded by other Christians, with other scriptures, other Christianities. Some of **them **were no doubt persecuted, some of **their **scriptures were no doubt burned. They didn’t call themselves heretics (although we do), they called themselves orthodox Christians, descending from the apostles.

They used “our” scriptures but also their own. They likely had their own Eusebius, their own Councils to determine the canon. Eusebius was not the authority. His (name removed by moderator)ut was evaluated (by whom?), found to be sound. Other councils, other guys like Eusebius, had their (name removed by moderator)ut considered, and rejected. Even if Eusebius got a paycheck from the emperor for his research, that does not mean there is no approval by an ecclesiastic authority (not just a council).

I don’t regard councils for choosing a canon as authoritative in themselves. Some authority prior to the council had to determine:

• there needs to be a New Testament
• a council will be utilized as a means towards this
• who should be invited to a council to offer advice
• what parameters the council(s) may follow
• after the council is done, a decision to regard **this **council as useful, and other councils (for instance, the gnostics’, and others) as not useful. We don’t know how many councils’ recommended canons did not get accepted, besides the obvious, like the Gnostics. It is kind of a circular reasoning to say “Of course the Gnostics and other groups’ scriptures were rejected, since those people were heretics”, because our view of doctrine is based on one choice of scripture.

I think there was a preexisting authority based on successors of Peter, and bishops in union with that successor. Other groups, arguably claiming a majority of ancient Christians, did not have the visible tie. They, their councils, and their canons faded from history. Until the History Channel.