Can one exclude the OT and still be Christian?

[Voco_proTatiano]

And hence not canons.

We are, after all, the Catholic Church – the Universal Church. We do not have a multiplicity of doctrines and canons.

It is irrelevant to this discussion.

No! it is NOT.
The Diatessarons, Syriac, and Latin, both witness the now canonical Gospels ONLY. Therefore there must have been some kind of canon extant around AD 170 forwards.

There are some 40 known “gospels.” Witnessed existance of any of those additional 36 would be irrelevent, would you not agree? The Gospel of Judas is a case in point – it falls right into your timeframe, and was witnessed by Irenaus.

And Tatian, and all the other major Fathers ignore them ALL.
This shows that there was indeed some form of universal canon before AD 250. This was probably what you call Tradition.

But so what?

Tertullian’s Novarum Testamentum clearly refers to the Church, not to a “new book.”

I cannot follow your reasoning here, it seen entirely dependant on special pleading.
Tertullian refers to Vetum Testamentum, as the Law, and Novum Testamentum as Gospel. That is to me, quite plain. So the canon as perceived by Tertullian was comprised of just nine books, the Pentateuch, and the Gospel Quartet, or possibly the Diatessaron, in which case, six. Now as time passed, the canon developed, eventually becoming fixed at the date you set.

Jerome lived after the Canon of the Bible had been proclaimed by Pope Damasus.

Yes, but you have clearly not read his preface, for therein he makes clear that he consulted ancient copies of the Gospels, both Greek and Latin.
Hence he is witnessing Vetus Latina Gospels, the best of which were the Carthaginian set, commissioned by Victorius Africanus, and the basis of the Latin Diatessaron.
St Jerome says himself, that following his instructions from Pope Damasus, he altered the Vetus Latina as little as was possible in bringing them into line with his best Greek witnesses.
So prior to AD 250, there was a Universal canon of the New Testament, and there existed good Latin translations of the Four Gospels, and Tertullian declares the New Testament to comprise the Gospels, and the Old Testament to comprise the Law, or Pentateuch.
This is reliable record, and not subject to special useage of words.

It is plain.
It is simple.

It is entirely possible that other writings were seen as holy, but not in the same league as the Law and the Gospel.
The Psalms for instance were probably seen much in the same light as we now see a hymnal. Inspired and holy writings, but not scripture.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No! it is NOT.
The Diatessarons, Syriac, and Latin, both witness the now canonical Gospels ONLY. Therefore there must have been some kind of canon extant around AD 170 forwards.

Ah, the old “must have been” argument.

Reminds me of the Baptist who claims the Apostolic Succession because there “must have been” some Baptists among the early Christians.

And Tatian, and all the other major Fathers ignore them ALL.
This shows that there was indeed some form of universal canon before AD 250. This was probably what you call Tradition.
I cannot follow your reasoning here, it seen entirely dependant on special pleading.

“Must have been” and “probably” are classic examples of special pleading.

 

[Jaegerstaetter]

I believe the issue is not EXCLUDING the Old Testament, but realizing that ,wherever the teachings of Jesus are diametrically opposed to what one reads in the Old Testament (e.g. “Love your enemies” as opposed to “an eye for an eye”), Christ’s is the Gospel Truth and voids what came before…of course, “Christians” for the last 1700 years have preferred quoting the Old Testament rather than the Sermon on the Mount because it is more convenient for them in order to justify a violent agenda…one totally opposed to what Our Savior taught…they have, in essence, surrendered to the “kingdoms of this world” which Christ rejected when tempted by Satan in the desert.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I believe the issue is not EXCLUDING the Old Testament, but realizing that ,wherever the teachings of Jesus are diametrically opposed to what one reads in the Old Testament (e.g. “Love your enemies” as opposed to “an eye for an eye”), Christ’s is the Gospel Truth and voids what came before…of course, “Christians” for the last 1700 years have preferred quoting the Old Testament rather than the Sermon on the Mount because it is more convenient for them in order to justify a violent agenda…one totally opposed to what Our Savior taught…they have, in essence, surrendered to the “kingdoms of this world” which Christ rejected when tempted by Satan in the desert.

This above exactly illuminates the fault with reading the OT unschooled.
Such as do, tend to make this same error, and that includes many Jews.
The expression, ‘eye for eye’, was never intended to be a mandatory premium for an offence, it was intended to set a limit upon retaliation. That is, the punishment may fit the crime, but not exceed it. It does not say that the punishment MUST fit the crime. This is indeed in line with what Our Lord said, namely that one might forgive one’s penitent brother as many times as he repents.

 

[Jaegerstaetter]

Excellent response, Dave…makes me wonder why I have never heard this from the pulpit…that, as Jesus states so clearly, the punishment does NOT have to fit the crime…Christ never condoned capital punishment…that is a post-Constantinian idea which has nothing to do with Jesus’ Gospel.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Ah, the old “must have been” argument.

Reminds me of the Baptist who claims the Apostolic Succession because there “must have been” some Baptists among the early Christians.

“Must have been” and “probably” are classic examples of special pleading.

Come on now Vern, let’s have fair play.
Of course the real details are lost in history, as is the golden age of Catholocism which extended from the death of Pope Victor the First 'til the firestorm of Diocletian.
Consider Newton’s apple:
It fell to the ground. Why?
Newton postulated a force of attraction proportional to the product of the Earth’s mass and the mass of the apple.
He later, in a leap of genius, invoked the inverse square law, common to all essences radiating from a point source.
It all seemed to work, and upon this basis, Kepler devised the mathematics of planetary orbits.
Like the magnetic and electric forces, the influence could exert its force across an empty void, but unlike them, it could not be screened.
The more closely physicists looked at gravity, the more mysterious it became.
The effects and influences of gravity are well understood, but the reasons behind gravity are no less a mystery than they were to Newton.
Ultimately we are left with:
An apple fell.
Therefore there MUST have been a force acting on that apple.
A force which utterly resists any attempt to understand its cause.
We can only know its effects.
Is this also special pleading?
So Tatian and Rabula chose the Quartet. There are two possibilities:
1/ There was in effect at least the seeds of a canon. Or,
2/ Tatian only found believable naratives in these four, and chose them on that basis, and Rabula copied Tatian’s choice because it was popular.
So, Vern, this is of course speculation, but which theory do you prefer, and believe that the record, such as there is, gives best support?
Must have been, ah yes, special pleading?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Come on now Vern, let’s have fair play.
Of course the real details are lost in history,

Okay – let’s agree on that. The real details are lost to history. So any claim about a universally-accepted canon before the late 4th Century is so much moonshine.

But what we do know shows no agreement on what was and what was not Christian scripture until that era.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Okay – let’s agree on that. The real details are lost to history. So any claim about a universally-accepted canon before the late 4th Century is so much moonshine.

Please be fair with me Vern, as I am with you.
You do not know it is moonshine, it might indeed be, but that is also lost in history.
Though no record of precise history remains, there is evidence in the texts themselves, of a ‘Golden Age’ of Alexandrian Christianity, between AD 200, following the Commissioning of the Vetus Latina by Victorius Africanus Papa, and the firestorm of persecution under Diocletian. There was an outpouring of witness from Alexandria, and what was in effect, the university there, commonly known as the Library.

But what we do know shows no agreement on what was and what was not Christian scripture until that era.

Yes, between the Firestorm of Diocletian, and Milvian Bridge under Constatine, there was a dark age for Christianity, in which Rome lost its way. It took the Council of Nicaea to steady the boat.
Don’t forget, Constantine was a Yorkshireman!

 

[NoelFitz]

Vern Humphrey wrote:

Okay – let’s agree on that. The real details are lost to history. So any claim about a universally-accepted canon before the late 4th Century is so much moonshine.

With respect I disagree.

Even at he present time there is no agreed Canon. Jews,Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics disagree with what constitutes the Canon.

Restricting oneself to the NT, prior to the late 4th century there were several canons, some quite close to the current version, in particular that of Irenaeus and the Muratorian canon.

---

**Irenaeus c. 180 AD **

1. Gospel according to Matthew
2. Gospel according to Mark
3. Gospel according to Luke
4. Gospel according to John
5. Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Thessalonians I
13. Thessalonians II
14. I Timothy
15. II Timothy
16. Titus
17. James (?)
18. 1 Peter
19. 1 John
20. Revelation of John
21. Shepherd of Hermas

**Muratorian c. 200 AD **

1. Gospel according to Matthew (?)
2. Gospel according to Mark (?)
3. Gospel according to Luke
4. Gospel according to John
5. Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. Thessalonians I
14. Thessalonians II
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. 1 John
19. 2 John
20. Jude
21. Revelation of John
22. Revelation of Solomon
23. Revelation of Peter

ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_canons.htm

The Muratorian Canon is:
the oldest known canon or list of books of the New Testament. The fragment is of the highest importance for the history of the Biblical canon. It was written in Rome itself or in its environs about 180-200; probably the original was in Greek, from which it was translated into Latin.

newadvent.org/cathen/10642a.htm