Evangelizing Before the Bible - PreBiblical Timeline

[JRKH]

Consider the if we translate the early church timeline to our own.

Let’s assume Jesus is Born in 1776 (Year of U.S. Independence)
This puts the resurection in1809
The Gospels and Acts written between 1846 and 1871

Our current year of 2008 translates to 232 AD.

The canon of the Bible is first assembled in 382 which translates to 2158 in our time. This is another 150 years from today.

A look at this website shows a rather extensive list of early Christian writings roughly up to “today” (around 250 AD). My count shows about 150 writings on this site.

Now, to our evangelistic bretheren.
If you are to go and “make believers of all nations” which of these 150 or so writings could you base your evangelization on?
Remember that no one has compiled these “scriptures” into a volume. No one has reviewed and determined which are “inspired” and which are not.
This won’t even occur for another 150 years.

How could you truly evangelize except on the strength of the Spirit and the unity and oral tradition of the Church?

Peace
James

 

[qui_est_ce]

Consider the if we translate the early church timeline to our own.

Let’s assume Jesus is Born in 1776 (Year of U.S. Independence)
This puts the resurection in1809
The Gospels and Acts written between 1846 and 1871

Our current year of 2008 translates to 232 AD.

The canon of the Bible is first assembled in 382 which translates to 2158 in our time. This is another 150 years from today.

A look at this website shows a rather extensive list of early Christian writings roughly up to “today” (around 250 AD). My count shows about 150 writings on this site.

Now, to our evangelistic bretheren.
If you are to go and “make believers of all nations” which of these 150 or so writings could you base your evangelization on?
Remember that no one has compiled these “scriptures” into a volume. No one has reviewed and determined which are “inspired” and which are not.
This won’t even occur for another 150 years.

How could you truly evangelize except on the strength of the Spirit and the unity and oral tradition of the Church?

Peace
James

I tried to edit your post for my response to a few short phrases. It was impossible. Your post underscores the short attention span of this generation. It also underscores the self-centeredness of the current generation. No future, no past, just the right now.

It’s depressing, but I hope to see some uplifting replies.

 

[SyCarl]

Of course teaching was done orally before the New Testament was written. However from a very early date much of the content of the New Testament was recognized as genuine. For example, Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, referred to Paul’s writtings. Indeed in 2 Peter, Paul’s writings were recognized as Scripture. Irenaeus in the second century was quite adamant about that there were just 4 Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He was able to indicate that the oral teachings of the Apostles were now passed on in Scripture.

The New Testament writings were constantly referred to by the fathers prior to the councils which set the canon and they didn’t seem to have any real doubt as to what was clearly genuine and what was clearly spurious. By the time the canon was officially adopted, most already accepted what would be defined and among those who did not only a few books were disputed.

If you look at all the Christian Apocryphal writings most are quite obviously spurious. Writings such as Clement, the Didache, and Barnabas that were considered as possibly Scriptural don’t really contain any doctrinal error.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Consider the if we translate the early church timeline to our own.

Let’s assume Jesus is Born in 1776 (Year of U.S. Independence)
This puts the resurection in1809
The Gospels and Acts written between 1846 and 1871

Our current year of 2008 translates to 232 AD.

The canon of the Bible is first assembled in 382 which translates to 2158 in our time. This is another 150 years from today.

A look at this website shows a rather extensive list of early Christian writings roughly up to “today” (around 250 AD). My count shows about 150 writings on this site.

Now, to our evangelistic bretheren.
If you are to go and “make believers of all nations” which of these 150 or so writings could you base your evangelization on?
Remember that no one has compiled these “scriptures” into a volume. No one has reviewed and determined which are “inspired” and which are not.
This won’t even occur for another 150 years.

How could you truly evangelize except on the strength of the Spirit and the unity and oral tradition of the Church?

Peace
James

The OT was - a few books excepted - settled by the time of the Apostles.​

So it is very far indeed from the truth to claim (as often is done) that the Apostles - & for that matter the later churches - had no Bible. They most definitely did; which explains how it comes about that the NT is packed full of OT allusions, citations, & quotations. (If Catholics are unaware of such basic facts, it doesn’t say much for their knowledge of the Bible )

With the passage of time, the NT books were recognised as also being “Holy Scripture”. The Church did not have to wait until the fourth century to have NT Scriptures - Catholics are far too apt to reason from the lateness of the canonisation of the NT of 27 books, to the non-existence of any NT Scripture before that. At least one ancient Church has an NT of 26 books to this day - does it have no NT Scriptures ? (Revelation is the missing book.)

The fallacy lies in identifying the final stage of a thing as being the only stage of it - as though a book could not exist in the form of separate chapters, as a serial; as well as in the form of a finished composition with the chapters bound up in their proper sequence. Chapter one of a book is no less real for not being bound up with all the others - nor does the lack of the later ones make the first non-existent.

The existence of the 27 books as a single group is not the same thing as their existence as separate books or groups of books; & many were recognised as Holy Scripture while the status of others was still being debated. What is true of the Church in general is not always true of its parts: but people overlook this distinction between whole & parts, so they ignore the status of different books in different churches at different dates; which leads them into making false statements about the history of the canon. And that makes them look stupid or - even worse - untruthful (Which is why would-be apologists need to be properly qualified, IMO - but that is BTW.)

Many Evangelicals are well aware of the need of tradition in the early years of the Church’s life, but would regard it as being ended & replaced by the canonisation of the NT books, helpful as it might be until then.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Many Evangelicals are well aware of the need of tradition in the early years of the Church’s life, but would regard it as being ended & replaced by the canonisation of the NT books, helpful as it might be until then.

But if Tradition was so needed in the early years to guide the churches in selecting which writings were worthy of being read in church and to distinguish the true teaching coming from the apostles from the teachings of early heretics, why would you say that the need is ended? If a pastor bases what he is teaching on his idea of what the bible teaches, how he is protected from error if he interprets it differently from how the Tradition of the apostles shows they and the early followers understood it? And the ongoing Tradition makes it possible to apply Christian teachings to modern world circumstances that the bible doesn’t specifically address.

The fact that denominations and Christian individuals differ so much in matters of doctrine and behavior when we have the same bible seems to me to point out what happens when Tradition is overlooked. The sacraments, slavery, contraception, homosexual lifestyle, the meaning and means of salvation, and church organization are only some issues on which Christians are or were divided when we should be of one mind.

 

[JRKH]

Of course teaching was done orally before the New Testament was written.

Oral teaching was the norm for many centuries after the NT was written. After all most people could not read in those days, and the printed word was extremely rare and expensive.

However from a very early date much of the content of the New Testament was recognized as genuine.

And much that was not included in the NT was accepted as genuine in some churtches, while some of what was later included in the NT was rejected by some churches.

For example, Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, referred to Paul’s writtings. Indeed in 2 Peter, Paul’s writings were recognized as Scripture. Irenaeus in the second century was quite adamant about that there were just 4 Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He was able to indicate that the oral teachings of the Apostles were now passed on in Scripture.

Perhaps Ireneaus would not have had to be so adament if there weren’t so many other “gospels” floating around at that time.

The New Testament writings were constantly referred to by the fathers prior to the councils which set the canon and they didn’t seem to have any real doubt as to what was clearly genuine and what was clearly spurious. By the time the canon was officially adopted, most already accepted what would be defined and among those who did not only a few books were disputed.

Perhaps this is true in so far as the Church fathers are concerned. But remember that news and learning in those days traveled by the speed of foot and the speed of internet. In order for the works of one person to be disseminated, discussed and decisions made many months or even years could pass. The very reason for deciding on a canon of the Bible was to provide a consistant, church wide set of core scriptural documents.

If you look at all the Christian Apocryphal writings most are quite obviously spurious. Writings such as Clement, the Didache, and Barnabas that were considered as possibly Scriptural don’t really contain any doctrinal error.

That is easy to day today, but not so easy for new Christians in the send century AD.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The OT was - a few books excepted - settled by the time of the Apostles.​

So it is very far indeed from the truth to claim (as often is done) that the Apostles - & for that matter the later churches - had no Bible. They most definitely did; which explains how it comes about that the NT is packed full of OT allusions, citations, & quotations. (If Catholics are unaware of such basic facts, it doesn’t say much for their knowledge of the Bible )

The apostles had the “Scriptures”, The Old Testament, The Torah. The Jews did not refer to this collection as The Bible, and neither do we. So while it is correct to say that the apostles had scripture, it is misleading to say that they had a Bible.

With the passage of time, the NT books were recognised as also being “Holy Scripture”. The Church did not have to wait until the fourth century to have NT Scriptures - Catholics are far too apt to reason from the lateness of the canonisation of the NT of 27 books, to the non-existence of any NT Scripture before that. At least one ancient Church has an NT of 26 books to this day - does it have no NT Scriptures ? (Revelation is the missing book.)

Indeed they did have “New Testament” Scripture, including Clement Gospel of Thomas, Hermes and many others. Some of which were used and accepted in various regions of the Church while others, that were later included, were rejected by some of the Churches.

The fallacy lies in identifying the final stage of a thing as being the only stage of it - as though a book could not exist in the form of separate chapters, as a serial; as well as in the form of a finished composition with the chapters bound up in their proper sequence. Chapter one of a book is no less real for not being bound up with all the others - nor does the lack of the later ones make the first non-existent.

I’m not saying that the process of the NT did not evolve over time. What I am saying is that, until the Church gathered and ratified the canon between 381 and 419, there was no clear and definative set of documents accepted by all, and a clear definative set of documents rejected by all.

The existence of the 27 books as a single group is not the same thing as their existence as separate books or groups of books; & many were recognised as Holy Scripture while the status of others was still being debated. What is true of the Church in general is not always true of its parts: but people overlook this distinction between whole & parts, so they ignore the status of different books in different churches at different dates; which leads them into making false statements about the history of the canon. And that makes them look stupid or - even worse - untruthful (Which is why would-be apologists need to be properly qualified, IMO - but that is BTW.)

Nicely put. It is easy to look back over many centuries and say, “well of course these are clearly right and these are wrong”. It is quite another to be in the midst of the time and try to make sense of it. Just look at how we are still struggling with Vatican II as an example.
As to the “would -be-apologists”, I couldn’t agree more. As I have often shown, I know “Just enough to be dangerous”, but I keep trying to learn.

Many Evangelicals are well aware of the need of tradition in the early years of the Church’s life, but would regard it as being ended & replaced by the canonisation of the NT books, helpful as it might be until then.

That is why I put the timeline into more contemporary terms. To try and help people understand the realities of trying to evangelize int the early days.

Peace
James

 

[JMBNH]

If you look at all the Christian Apocryphal writings most are quite obviously spurious. Writings such as Clement, the Didache, and Barnabas that were considered as possibly Scriptural don’t really contain any doctrinal error.

Try reading that one if you think it’s so sound. The rest I agree on (though never read Clement or Hermas for that matter so can just go on excerpts)

For the record the serious error is that it says the Jewish Law was never bin dign and criticises the Jews for having followed it and says instead it was symbolic of certain sins to avoid but with pretty poor logic to back it up