H
HopkinsReb
Guest
motley motley motley motley motley motley
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
It’s a start.
M
MiserereMei
Guest
The New Testament canon formed in much the same way that the Old Testament canons formed: by means of collecting various texts together, various communities creating their own canons, and, over the centuries, a consensus gradually formed. The fact that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians share the same exact canon, while some Oriental Orthodox Christians (I think mostly the Ethiopians)—whose Churches broke away over Chalcedon—have more books in the New Testament, is proof that a consensus formed.
In other words, the development of the canon was a community affair, not one of power. Could there be other books not among the 27 which are also inspired? Theoretically, yes. But, since they are not a part of the Church’s canon now, they could not be used as Scripture, because the Christian communities of today do not recognize them as Scripture. Could there be books in the canon today which are not as Scripture as the rest of the canon? Yes; in fact, seeing the antilegomena (James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation) as a New Testament deuterocanon, of lesser authority compared to the books, has ancient precedent.
In other words, the development of the canon was a community affair, not one of power. Could there be other books not among the 27 which are also inspired? Theoretically, yes. But, since they are not a part of the Church’s canon now, they could not be used as Scripture, because the Christian communities of today do not recognize them as Scripture. Could there be books in the canon today which are not as Scripture as the rest of the canon? Yes; in fact, seeing the antilegomena (James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation) as a New Testament deuterocanon, of lesser authority compared to the books, has ancient precedent.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Should have just locked the thread after this reply…commenter:
Uhm, that’s exactly what happened. Church councils determined the canon, and they did it from those books actually used liturgically.
The very existence of “The Bible” is an exercise of the teaching authority of the bishops.
hawk
Maybe, but there remains this ongoing misunderstanding about what sola scriptura actually is.JonNC:
I think he means not relying on the Church for authority, not that there is no church.
T
TruthHasSpoken
Guest
Is does mean Sacred Scripture and I use it as a title to differentiate it from Tradition
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In fairness, this same problem persists among advocates of sola scriptura.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, that is one of the reasons some Catholics think this.JonNC:
In fairness, this same problem persists among advocates of sola scriptura.
A
adf417
Guest
Wouldn’t it be more correct to say the growing # of NT books was a community affair?
I don’t understand how the now understood 27book of the NT, finished being written at around 100AD can grow to a much larger count than the 27 books over the next 300 years, then settle to the final 27 books be considered a community affair. If anything, the community affair concept should show the NT should be more like a 100 book NT canon.
Peace!!!
M
MiserereMei
Guest
It was both, if I am understanding you correctly. The composition of the various New Testament books were driven by community needs, and the development of the canon was a slow, organic process based around the needs of various communities with often contradictory canons. A 100 book canon would have been impossible at the time, partly due to the cost prohibitive nature of copying manuscripts, partly due to the ability of communities in obtaining texts, and partly due to the limits of community need—many books, some considered canonical today, just weren’t important to various communities due to their theological traditions and particular social contexts. Many communities in the West, for example, attributed to James about as much authority as we attribute to the Didache today.
Have you perhaps ever read either The Writings of the New Testament by Luke Timothy Johnson or The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger? If not, I would highly recommend them, along with the New Oxford Annotated Bible (I prefer the RSV version, simply because I find that translation a more pleasant read) for a good introduction to text critical issues, including the formation of the canon.
A word of caution on the Metzger text: I have the second edition, which is a little outdated, but the newer editions have Bart Ehrman as contributer, in case you have issue with Ehrman.
Pax tecum.
Have you perhaps ever read either The Writings of the New Testament by Luke Timothy Johnson or The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger? If not, I would highly recommend them, along with the New Oxford Annotated Bible (I prefer the RSV version, simply because I find that translation a more pleasant read) for a good introduction to text critical issues, including the formation of the canon.
A word of caution on the Metzger text: I have the second edition, which is a little outdated, but the newer editions have Bart Ehrman as contributer, in case you have issue with Ehrman.
Pax tecum.
A
adf417
Guest
I understand this position. The bottom line is the canon was GROWING dispite the “impossibility” or the “cost prohibitive nature” of a larger canon. The community aspects nor the cost consideration as you point out can never be the driving factors for a universal canon.
Do either of these guys acknowledge the early councils (name removed by moderator)ut on the canon?
I don’t have a problem with Ehrman. I have learned to detect his bias on other writings/video.
Peace!!!
Last edited:
M
MiserereMei
Guest
Good. If you can wade through his bias, he has some useful information.
The books both acknowledge that early councils had a role in the process, yes (of course—really, are there people who deny the role of the early councils?). They also acknowledge that, as I have been maintaining, the process is far more organic and complex than a simple “the bishops did it” can admit. Canonization of Scripture is a function of the Church, of which the bishops are but a single, though vocal, part.
It is more accurate to say that the canons were in a state of flux among the communities, as some canons were longer than others, some quite short, as the liturgical and pastoral needs of the communities required. Sometimes books were removed over time, sometimes books were added. The canon as we know it is ultimately a long-in-coming compromise of the various communities to delineate an “us” against a “them,” identified as the Marcionite and Gnostic sects. This process and compromise is what is often referred to as the “consensus” of the early church.
And remember, bishops did not rule as military dictators. If the people did not accept their decision, the bishops ultimately had no power to enforce their compromise.
T
TruthHasSpoken
Guest
Which councils are being referred to specifically?
I would restate: deciding which books were and were not scripture was an act of the Church, Bishops meeting in Council(s) or Synods w/the approval of Rome.
Compromise implies to me, that one can’t be assured that all 27 books of the NT are scripture, and that books have been left out that should be included. Rather, one criteria in determining canonicity was whether it held to the orthodoxy of the faith passed down by the apostles. It wasn’t a compromise with various “sects” but rather a clinging to what was true and not.
Well this is still true today, even the threat of ex-communication can have little to no affect of changing one’s beliefs. Regardless of what individuals believe, authority to determine doctrine comes from the Bishops.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, however it may not all be written down in the Bible books.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMei
Guest
It is getting late for me, so this will be the last response I make tonight. I have other things to do before going to bed. I will probably not be able to get back on until Thursday, so I bid you adieu until then.
Consistency of theology was one criterion for the final ratification, yes. It would strike me, though, that the Lutheran should be more bothered by a lack of certainty about the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic, who has at least their church’s authority to fall back on. But, fear not, despite my view that the bishops were not the exclusive makers of the decision, I thoroughly trust the compromise by the Church—bishops, priests, and laity—because it formed a consensus, and inasmuch as it was a consensus, it is a confession, and if it is a confession, then I as a son of the Church have bound myself to it. The fact of its state as a consensus of the Church makes it valid and true—not the authority of the bishop of Rome, not the authority of any particular council, but by the authority of the Church in toto. The Scriptures belong to the Church—not the Pope only, not the bishops only, not the priests only, not the laity only. If it does not belong to one part of the Church, it cannot be the Church’s book, for the Church is one body.
Hippo is the first that comes to mind.
Ok. If that is how you wish to read “function of the Church”, fine. The danger of that view is that it excludes the laity, and imagines the people to be ahistorically passive. Remember—part of the reason the East and West are not united is due to the reaction of monks and layfolk to the Council of Florence, who saw the council as bowing to heresy.
A more hardline version of the view you espouse on compromise is why the Reformation turned out the way it did, if one judges by the documents on both sides. Compromise does not necessitate a negation of truth, but does necessitate a negation of ego. Although, I do believe I used the term “communities” to refer to non-heretics, rather than “sects”. The two words are connotatively different, and the word “communities” is literally accurate, as they were primarily geographically bound, with different cultures and liturgical traditions.
Consistency of theology was one criterion for the final ratification, yes. It would strike me, though, that the Lutheran should be more bothered by a lack of certainty about the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic, who has at least their church’s authority to fall back on. But, fear not, despite my view that the bishops were not the exclusive makers of the decision, I thoroughly trust the compromise by the Church—bishops, priests, and laity—because it formed a consensus, and inasmuch as it was a consensus, it is a confession, and if it is a confession, then I as a son of the Church have bound myself to it. The fact of its state as a consensus of the Church makes it valid and true—not the authority of the bishop of Rome, not the authority of any particular council, but by the authority of the Church in toto. The Scriptures belong to the Church—not the Pope only, not the bishops only, not the priests only, not the laity only. If it does not belong to one part of the Church, it cannot be the Church’s book, for the Church is one body.
D
dochawk
Guest
Presumably, only bishops, not the community at large, were deciding which texts to use at liturgy . . . and it is those texts that were approved as the canon,.
Not really–having all the canonical texts as a single book wouldn’t become common until much, much later.
A
adf417
Guest
I agree. My “community affair” comment should have been in quotes as it was the other poster’s position. I was just making the point of the # of books were growing not static or diminishing.adf417:
Presumably, only bishops, not the community at large, were deciding which texts to use at liturgy . . . and it is those texts that were approved as the canon,.
Peace!!!
T
TruthHasSpoken
Guest
Exactly …
A
adf417
Guest
Yes! Really!
And the Catholic church agrees. The work of the Holy Spirit is a bit mor complicated than this caricature you describe. Its much more precise in the CCC if one cares to actually learn.
…by those who consider the bishops only playing croquet at the early councils.
Sounds just like today, and yet the whole Catholic church, and many others, are waiting and posturing for what the pope will do and say on most any hot topic.
Peace!!!
T
TruthHasSpoken
Guest
So too, the Council of Rome, a few years before.
Let’s flush out a bit on who these laity were and what their roles were. Do you have any historical quotes on the laity being involved in the canon? Are you arguing that the laity were the non ordained, educated in theology and languages or the uneducated (very few could read or write)?
Florence isn’t relevant in any way to the canon formation 1000 years earlier. The books you have read, do they try and make a connection here?
Contending that the canonization process involved “Compromise” rather than uniting to and giving affirmation to what was true would need evidence. The first would entail concessions, the latter simply adherence and alignment to what was true. What concessions do you believe were involved in creating the canon? If I believe that 2+2 = 5 and someone shows me 2+2 = 4 and I then agree, I’m not compromising my belief, just correcting my error and adhering to what is true.
I would restate that it was adherence to what was Orthodox, that taught by the apostles to their descendants. One must ask of those Catholic Bishops at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, what else did they believe and profess, especially when they brought these collection of readings into Church and read them at Mass where they presided? And if one differs from them, from their universal beliefs, one should pause and consider why this is so, and based on whose authority?
Agree, especially as those late 4th century synods affirmed 27 NT books and 46 OT books. One must ask: were they led by the Holy Spirit or not on the NT? And if I can’t trust them on the OT canon, why should I trust them on the NT canon? And a string of other questions on what they believed follows, and whether one adheres to what they believed or not.
One criteria for canonicity was whether or not a writing was widely being read at Mass.
When and where does one first find this belief in time as it relates to the canon?
For sure.
- Status