Determination of the canon of the NT

[Protestant101]

Confused! Non-Catholics who have studied the origins of scripture, accept the decisions of of the various catholic councils that eventually finalized the NT canon, but reject the decisions of those very same councils, regarding the canon of the OT.

Why admit that the leaders of the CC, by infallible decision, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the NT and then reject the canon of the OT, which was decided by the same bishops at the same council?

Well, now Joe! Some of “us” actually don’t quite “admit” what you say we do. But I will take some time and read the various responses first before saying much more. This is the type of subject I am always interested in!

 

[Protestant101]

Whoever had the authority to recognize what should be included in the New Testament and what should not be included in the New Testament, certainly, in my mind, has the same right regarding what should be included in the Old Testament, and what shouldn’t.

Who might that be friend???

“Deciding” what should or should not be included in either old or new testament, would not be an indication of “authority” over same, especially in regards to interpretation of the Scriptures. LOL, atleast that’s one point I will be discussing here. Just incase you were wondering…

 

[Protestant101]

No one? So would you apply the same to other doctrines? The Trinity? Arians and Semi-Arians rejected the Trinity,which equates into the fact no church truly had any authority,since the Arians rejected the doctrine? The fact there exist different views or flat out rejection of certain or any specific doctrines does not mean the church Christ founded had no such authority.If that is the case,we are all doomed and Jesus talked a bunch of hype and nothing more.

The kind of “authority” you speak of here, is not the kind of authority that any church has ever had, or has now, or ever will have. But more on that later. I need to be quiet and read the rest of the responses first.

 

[joe370]

“Deciding” what should or should not be included in either old or new testament, would not be an indication of “authority” over same, especially in regards to interpretation of the Scriptures. LOL, atleast that’s one point I will be discussing here. Just incase you were wondering…

Hey P101… okay, what would be an indication of authority? We all know Jesus has the ultimate authority because He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," but then He proceeds to say to His established church leaders, in His stead, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I think I know what you are going to say regarding the authority to interpret scripture, so I will put it another way: Forget the Catholic Church for the moment; who, in the Protestant churches has the authority to interpret scripture? The shepherds of each respective church I think!

 

[Protestant101]

Forget the Catholic Church for the moment; who, in the Protestant churches has the authority to interpret scripture? The shepherds of each respective church I think!

LOL; why would I want to “forget” the Roman Catholic Church Joe! Now that wouldn’t be right!

But I will give you a quick answer, then wait to explain in another post

I believe that there are people in both Protestant and Catholic Churches with “authority” to explain the scriptures.

 

[joe370]

Hey Prot101…

But I will give you a quick answer, then wait to explain in another post

OK…

I believe that there are people in both Protestant and Catholic Churches with “authority” to explain the scriptures.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Again, excellent question. Your thoughts Dave???

I don’t know to make it plainer to Nicea325 (and frankly don’t really understand the question), but I’ll give it a go. S/he knows exactly why I don’t respond to her shrill prompts–and actually Bluegoat has already explained this more clearly than I could…but I’ll just do my best to repeat:

As I’m sure you know there was a huge controversy surrounding Arianism. As a result of the controversy, two truly ecumenical councils were called (Nicaea I and Constantinople I). The controversy was essentially settled by these ecumenical councils.

The reason the biblical canon question you’ve posed is not a good analogue to the Arian controversy is as follows. Despite the fact that each of the churches developed their own biblical canon, there was never an ecumenical council called to settle the matter of the contents of the Bible. Why? Because the fact that the canons were different among the churches was NOT a controversial issue (at least not until the Protestant Reformation 1100 years later). Not all doctrine needs to be set out by an ecumenical council of the church to be universally accepted doctrine, or we’d all be in big trouble.

I don’t “accept” the contents of the N.T. based on the declaration of a few Roman synods, I accept the N.T. canon based on the fact that it has been more or less consistently accepted worldwide by all the churches throughout the centuries–that’s pretty conclusive, imo. The history of the N.T. canon is one of consistency among the various churches. The history of the O.T. canon is one of variability among the various churches.

 

[Gal219]

Sisters/Brothers,

In our pursuit of unity in Christ Jesus, I think its suffice to say a few things. Jesus left us his church on apostolic terms. Its proper to expect he intended his Church to provide us with the true canon. Has anyone ever come forward claiming a missing document that carries apostolic authority? I think not. Further, the Reformation simply resulted in the placement 7 OT books at the “back” of the bible, no one would dare delete them from it. It was as recent as the 19th century that these books were then removed from the bible instead of stuffed in the back. The current Protestant bible is as old as my great great grandmother, God rest her soul.

When Jesus promised the keys would be handed to Peter (Think Shebna and Eliakim), he also instructed Peter to tend the lambs and feed the sheep. Jesus rarely felt the need to repeat himself for he is God. The things worth repeating include a Shepherd for his Church, that his flesh is food indeed and for Peter to feed his sheep. Also, all that Jesus wanted to pass on to us, according to John, could not be contained by all the books of the earth. There is a Church that unites, rather than divides, you just have to lose your life to find it.

Allow yourselves the spiritual food God sacrificed his only Son for, the incarnate word that is found in the canon of the CC.

 

[Gal219]

Too long a post maybe, I failed to insert:

God’s commandment to Peter, instructing him to tend/feed the flock is also a commandment to us…To allow ourselves to be fed by the Church with Peter as it’s head. Peter was singled out among 12, not by accident. The 266th successor to Peter is praying that you will allow yourselves to be fed by the Holy Spirit, through the miraculous Church that is the body of Chirst Our Lord, Amen

 

[benidict]

LOL; why would I want to “forget” the Roman Catholic Church Joe! Now that wouldn’t be right!

But I will give you a quick answer, then wait to explain in another post

I believe that there are people in both Protestant and Catholic Churches with “authority” to explain the scriptures.

the Catholic Church gets its authority from Jesus Christ, via Peter, and his successors. where do the Protestants, and for that matter, the Adventist get theirs? and which among the 30000 denominations, have this authority? thx

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

I don’t know to make it plainer to Nicea325 (and frankly don’t really understand the question), but I’ll give it a go. S/he knows exactly why I don’t respond to her shrill prompts–and actually Bluegoat has already explained this more clearly than I could…but I’ll just do my best to repeat:

As I’m sure you know there was a huge controversy surrounding Arianism. As a result of the controversy, two truly ecumenical councils were called (Nicaea I and Constantinople I). The controversy was essentially settled by these ecumenical councils.

The reason the biblical canon question you’ve posed is not a good analogue to the Arian controversy is as follows. Despite the fact that each of the churches developed their own biblical canon, there was never an ecumenical council called to settle the matter of the contents of the Bible.

By each church I now know you mean, each respective EOC (there was more than one from the 5th century on…) - and the one RCC in the west. You are not including the Protestant churches, when you say:

*The NT has been more or less consistently accepted worldwide by all the churches throughout the centuries–that’s pretty conclusive, imo??? I think I’m getting closer…
*

The worldwide consensus among all churches, that seems conclusive to you had been reached long before the 16th century protestant reformation???

Why? Because the fact that the canons were different among the churches was NOT a controversial issue (at least not until the Protestant Reformation 1100 years later). Not all doctrine needs to be set out by an ecumenical council of the church to be universally accepted doctrine, or we’d all be in big trouble.I don’t “accept” the contents of the N.T. based on the declaration of a few Roman synods, I accept the N.T. canon based on the fact that it has been more or less consistently accepted worldwide by all the churches throughout the centuries–that’s pretty conclusive, imo. The history of the N.T. canon is one of consistency among the various churches. The history of the O.T. canon is one of variability among the various churches.

I start to get the vibe from you that not every decision needs an ecumenical council, but then you say things like, I don’t “accept” the contents of the N.T. based on the declaration of a few Roman synods, because they were not ecumenical councils. But I think this is the upshot:

You accept the fact that there was a consensus (albeit not ecumenical) - among the one western catholic church, and the many eastern catholic churches, spanning the centuries from the 1st century to the great east west schism, and that is enough for you??? And, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, since there was no ecumenical council to determine what should be in it and what shouldn’t be in it, and no universal consensus among the Greek eastern churches and the Latin western churches, prior to the great east west schism, there is no way to know, with certainty, who has all of the the correct OT books, and who doesn’t???

Am I getting warmer?

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey Dave…

By each church I now know you mean, each respective EOC (there was more than one from the 5th century on…) - and the one RCC in the west. You are not including the Protestant churches, when you say:

*The NT has been more or less consistently accepted worldwide by all the churches throughout the centuries–that’s pretty conclusive, imo??? I think I’m getting closer…
*

The worldwide consensus among all churches, that seems conclusive to you had been reached long before the 16th century protestant reformation???

I start to get the vibe from you that not every decision needs an ecumenical council, but then you say things like, I don’t “accept” the contents of the N.T. based on the declaration of a few Roman synods, because they were not ecumenical councils. But I think this is the upshot:

You accept the fact that there was a consensus (albeit not ecumenical) - among the one western catholic church, and the many eastern catholic churches, spanning the centuries from the 1st century to the great east west schism, and that is enough for you??? And, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, since there was no ecumenical council to determine what should be in it and what shouldn’t be in it, and no universal consensus among the Greek eastern churches and the Latin western churches, prior to the great east west schism, there is no way to know, with certainty, who has all of the the correct OT books, and who doesn’t???

Am I getting warmer?

It really seems like you do not understand how the Church has historically made decisions. Dave is being quite clear and is in line with the church history on this. Do you understand the difference in purpose and authority between a local and ecumenical council, or the ways doctrine and practise can be accepted in the Church? The canon is part of Tradition - do you understand what comprises the deposit of tradition, and how it is understood to be included? It is a bit strange that you say you understand in some posts, and in others do not seem to get it.

Perhaps if you explained what you understand to be the canon and how it came to be, it would be easier to address your questions, because at the moment they simply don’t make sense in light of what has already been discussed.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hey Dave…

By each church I now know you mean, each respective EOC (there was more than one from the 5th century on…) - and the one RCC in the west. You are not including the Protestant churches, when you say:

*The NT has been more or less consistently accepted worldwide by all the churches throughout the centuries–that’s pretty conclusive, imo??? I think I’m getting closer…
*

The worldwide consensus among all churches, that seems conclusive to you had been reached long before the 16th century protestant reformation???

I start to get the vibe from you that not every decision needs an ecumenical council, but then you say things like, I don’t “accept” the contents of the N.T. based on the declaration of a few Roman synods, because they were not ecumenical councils. But I think this is the upshot:

You accept the fact that there was a consensus (albeit not ecumenical) - among the one western catholic church, and the many eastern catholic churches, spanning the centuries from the 1st century to the great east west schism, and that is enough for you??? And, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, since there was no ecumenical council to determine what should be in it and what shouldn’t be in it, and no universal consensus among the Greek eastern churches and the Latin western churches, prior to the great east west schism, there is no way to know, with certainty, who has all of the the correct OT books, and who doesn’t???

Am I getting warmer?

This is somewhat closer, I would say, yes. I think the part that’s still confused is simply the where and who of Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries–the time the Roman synods were meeting. There was more that just the Roman (Latinate) and Greek (Byzantine) church–the church had already extended far beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. Even the church in India (part of the Syriac Orthodox tradition) traces its origin to the first century and the Apostle Thomas.

Just as an example, when you speak about the “great” east/west schism (1056), it was only “great” in terms of the Catholic and Byzantine Churches. The majority of Christianity wasn’t even involved in the “great” schism. So in the ancient world, there is far, far more to the church in the “East” than what we now would call the Greek Orthodox Church.

Thus, the church, lets say, in India likely neither knew about, heard about, or cared about the decisions of the bishop of Rome and some other western bishops meeting four thousand miles away in Rome or Africa. Their own bishops in India were appointed by the Patriarch of the Syriac church, which at that time was located in Persia, as I recall. (The seat of the Patriarchate was later moved to Baghdad, but that was centuries later).

So yes, the Protestant Reformation was much, much later in history (16th century).

 

[joe370]

I am no scholar or theologian, and since you seem to be one, on some level, perhaps you could break it down for me - that is the canon of scripture and how it came to be; leave nothing out and all churches involved; the time line and as well. Thanks much!!!

It really seems like you do not understand how the Church has historically made decisions. Dave is being quite clear and is in line with the church history on this. Do you understand the difference in purpose and authority between a local and ecumenical council, or the ways doctrine and practise can be accepted in the Church? The canon is part of Tradition - do you understand what comprises the deposit of tradition, and how it is understood to be included? It is a bit strange that you say you understand in some posts, and in others do not seem to get it.

Perhaps if you explained what you understand to be the canon and how it came to be, it would be easier to address your questions, because at the moment they simply don’t make sense in light of what has already been discussed.

 

[joe370]

I am trying, sincerely, to understand your position. I will look into those early non-Catholic churches in India…

This is somewhat closer, I would say, yes. I think the part that’s still confused is simply the where and who of Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries–the time the Roman synods were meeting. There was more that just the Roman (Latinate) and Greek (Byzantine) church–the church had already extended far beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. Even the church in India (part of the Syriac Orthodox tradition) traces its origin to the first century and the Apostle Thomas.

Just as an example, when you speak about the “great” east/west schism (1056), it was only “great” in terms of the Catholic and Byzantine Churches. The majority of Christianity wasn’t even involved in the “great” schism. So in the ancient world, there is far, far more to the church in the “East” than what we now would call the Greek Orthodox Church.

Thus, the church, lets say, in India likely neither knew about, heard about, or cared about the decisions of the bishop of Rome and some other western bishops meeting four thousand miles away in Rome or Africa. Their own bishops in India were appointed by the Patriarch of the Syriac church, which at that time was located in Persia, as I recall. (The seat of the Patriarchate was later moved to Baghdad, but that was centuries later).

So yes, the Protestant Reformation was much, much later in history (16th century).

 

[Nicea325]

The kind of “authority” you speak of here, is not the kind of authority that any church has ever had, or has now, or ever will have. But more on that later. I need to be quiet and read the rest of the responses first.

Really? Apparently you are not familiar with church history.What church gave us the doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation,etc? Evidently there is ‘the’ church which such authority and no amount of denials will make it go away.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I am trying, sincerely, to understand your position. I will look into those early non-Catholic churches in India…

I was just using India as an example, but sure, maybe that would be a good place to start. Try googling the “Syro-Malabar Church” or “Malankara Orthodox” and see what you come up with. Maybe there is a decent Wikipedia article on it. I will warn you though that the modern history of Indian Christians is very complex, but the early tradition of all of them is pretty straightforward.

I think so many people have been conditioned to simplistically believe that there was only a single united church until 1056 and after the so-called “great schism” there were only two: Greek and Latin (which was kind of true but ONLY within the bounds of the historic Roman Empire, at best) that this idea of other very large and well-established churches already existing in the fourth century in places like Armenia, Persia, Ethiopia, Mesopotamia and India does not mesh well with what they’ve been taught in school or church. I can understand your confusion.

Some day you may want to read the book by Philip Jenkins (University of Pennsylvania) called (I think) The Lost History of Christianity. Its focus is more on the Arab Conquest (so, about 300 years after the period we are discussing), but it does give some background of what was going on in the “rest” of the world at the time period we are discussing. What we’ve been taught was sort of the “remainder” of Christianity outside of the Roman Empire actually constituted the majority of Christians.

Since you seem to be drawn ECFs, you may also want to read the works of Aphrahat (3rd-4th Century Persia) or the works of Ephrem (4th century Mesopotamia).

 

[Bluegoat]

I am no scholar or theologian, and since you seem to be one, on some level, perhaps you could break it down for me - that is the canon of scripture and how it came to be; leave nothing out and all churches involved; the time line and as well. Thanks much!!!

I am by no means a scholar of Church history.

But since the beginning, the Church has been in various places. You can see some examples in the NT where it talks about the Church in one place or another. Although they were all one Church, in another sense they were all parts of the Church. Each place had a Bishop and a community around the Bishop, and sometimes a community of Bishops.

The chart Dave posted earlier includes most ogf the different groups. Some of them, like the Indians, because of distance, became somewhat cut off from the others, but of course were still part of the Church. Or for example even in the West, the British Church for many years did not have much contact with the Roman patriarch and developed some distinctive features.

As far as doctrine and practices, some things have been different in different places, while it was recognized that other issues required unity. So the liturgy might be in different languages, or have different forms, or in the East babies were confirmed through chrismation, which in the West older children were confirmed with laying on of hands. Some differences are ok.

Other times there are problems with differences. In that case a common way to solve the problem was with a council. Sometimes if it was a localized problem, it was a local council. A Church wide problem might require an ecumenical council. A local council was only binding locally, but sometimes the results of a local council might in practise be accepted everywhere.

This is where it gets a bit confusing. The Church considers things which were not ever discussed in a council as part of Tradition if they were universally accepted and practised by the Church as part of TRadition. The Church considers local councils that were universally adopted and practised as part of Tradition. The Church accepts ecumenical councils decisions that were universally adopted as part of Tradition. OTOH, the decisions of local or ecumenical councils that were not accepted by the Church are not part of Tradition!

Really, it is not the decision at a council that makes the doctrine. It is the universal acceptance by the Church. THe universal acceptance of an ecumnical council is what gives it authority - the council itself is simply a means. Strictly speaking, a council isn’t ecumenical until it is understood as such later on.

Now, it does get complicated when you have people like the Christians in India who were for so long not really in contact. What if everyone else accepted something, and then we find they never did? It raises questions. (As it happens, they were forcibly converted.) And as soon as we get into a situation where there is some kind of schism, the question arises “who is the Church”. Because if acceptance by the whole Church is required to recognize a decision as in some way binding, that is going to be a very important issue. Any decision made after such a schism is not likely to be recognized by those on the other side, but that is essentially a problem of the schism, not necessarily the doctrine itself.

As far as the NT goes, there were discussions about it, and it has been universally been accepted from fairly early on. It would be difficult at this late point for anyone to add to or take anything away. The OT is a bit different - it has never been identical - it has never been universally accepted in one form, just like there has never been one form of the liturgy. Which isn’t to say one can do what one wants willy nilly, but there is lots of precedent for various communities making their own decisions about what they will accept as the OT canon.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

I was just using India as an example, but sure, maybe that would be a good place to start. Try googling the “Syro-Malabar Church” or “Malankara Orthodox” and see what you come up with. Maybe there is a decent Wikipedia article on it. I will warn you though that the modern history of Indian Christians is very complex, but the early tradition of all of them is pretty straightforward.

Both the “Syro-Malabar Church” or “Malankara Orthodox” can legitimately trace their origins all the way back to the apostle Thomas.

The Syro-Malabar Church is an Oriental (Eastern Rite) Catholic Church, now, in full communion with the Church of Rome.

The Oriental Churches, which only recognize three ecumenical councils: the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the First Council of Ephesus.

List of Oriental Orthodox churches:

The Armenian Apostolic Church
The Holy See of Cilicia
The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople
The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
The British Orthodox Church in the United Kingdom
The French Coptic Orthodox Church in France
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
The Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (also known as the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch)
The Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church
The Indian (Malankara) - Orthodox Syrian Church

I understand that Christianity flourished primarily in five centers of the Roman world for the first five centuries: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Byzantium, which became known as Patriarchates. I am aware of all of the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches out there in the world today; I am also aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches that are autonomous, self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Almost all of the separated Orthodox Churches of the East, unionized with Rome, forming the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches, we see today. The remaining Eastern Churches joined the Greek or Byzantine Orthodox Church of Constantinople.

Of the 22 rites in the Catholic Church today, 21 of those rites comprise the Eastern Catholic Churches, and one rite comprise the Western Catholic Church, and each have a distinctive rite or tradition, namely in liturgy, in ecclesiastical discipline, and in spiritual tradition, all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Firstly, have I missed any? Secondly, I find it interesting as to why these 21 Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches of the East, unionized with the bishop of Rome, in the first place? And thirdly, can you show me where each of these Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Catholic Churches, at anytime, from the 4th century to the great East - West schism, held local synods to determine their respective canon of scripture, just as the Roman Catholic Church did, at their various local synods? After all, we are looking for a universal consensus amidst all of the preceding churches, as opposed to an ecumenical consensus which, historically, does not exist.

I don’t know if we can really call it a consensus if we don’t officially know which books these Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches embraced and jettisoned; you know what I mean?

One more thing: what if, hypothetically speaking, one, or several of these Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Catholic Churches had recognized certain New Testament books that are not unanimously recognized today, as being canonical, or rejected certain books that now comprise our New Testament today; what would that have done to the universal consensus among all worldwide churches, idea?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hey Dave…

1)OK. Quite a few problems here. First, because we are talking about fourth and fifth centuries, we need to try to visualize the state of Christianity at that time, not so much the way it Christianity structured now. Many of the divisions and subdivisions, ultimate unions with Rome, etc. are much, much later developments. (Although it is I guess interesting that these churches can be in union with Rome but have differing biblical canons!) Anyway, you’re taking the contemporary state of affairs and retrojecting them back to the fourth century (e.g, there was no Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem or Constantinople in the fourth century, no Britain, no France in the fourth century etc.) This is probably not helpful to the discussion.

1. Your list of patriarchates within the Roman world seems fine, but you’ve omitted the ones outside the Roman World, particularly major centers like Selucia-Ctesiphon (later moved to Baghdad) and of course patriarchates in places like Armenia and Ethiopia–i.e., outside the Roman empire. See previous post.
2. The Churches of the East (sometimes referred to as the “Assyrian churches”) did not accept the Council of Ephesus. I think they are also not included in your list.
3. The Great Schism is not really relevant at all to this discussion–it seems to me that you’re not reading what I’m posting(?)–which is a little frustrating. Or is it still unclear why it’s irrelevant?
4. No, I’m not aware of any synods within the individuals churches of the East to discuss the biblical canon–they may or may not have occurred, I just don’t know. However, as I recall there were discussions between the Western Syriac churches and the Byzantine church regarding the composition of the New Testament. I don’t know that this discussion occurred within the context of a synod of bishops. Some Syriac churches initially omitted some of the later letters in the canon of the NT in the Peshitta (as I believe was also the case in the Byzantine church for a period–and mentioned by Eusebius as I recall) but then later worked to conform their biblical text to be closer to the Greek text. I’m not aware that they ever accepted any books that were rejected by other churches, but this is possible. Most of the spurious Gospels came out of Gnostic groups, which were further to the West. But the point is that whatever objections or questions or disputes that arose regarding the NT were ironed out over the course of time, one way or another. It does seem that having a consistent NT was a greater concern and that consistent OT canon, but that’s just my impression.
5. You can read more about Peshitta manuscripts here
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta. I haven’t read the article closely, but it’s clear that these early manuscripts include OT books that are not in the Roman Catholic canon.
6. Universal and ecumenical mean the same thing so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.
7. I don’t think we can tell which books were “jettisoned” (if any) and I’m guess I’m not sure why that matters. If we want to know which books were included, it’s likely that the best we can do is look at ancient manuscripts and try to back into the list.
8. If theoretically a significant number of churches had and maintained differing NT canons, then I guess we would say that the Tradition of the universal church is that they can differ. But that’s not the case.