From where did our present day, codified NT come?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Do you believe that the New Testament is in fact the product of the Catholic Church? If not then please explain to me where the NT came from, of course leaving the CC completely out of your explanation? If you are right and the NT is absolutely not a product of the CC, then logically speaking, the NT would have come down to us through the centuries, anyway, in its present codified format, even if the CC had never existed, so again, let’s leave the CC out of the discussion, when addressing the following question: 👍

From where did our present day, codified NT come?
 
No thinking person would person deny that the Bishops, in response to Marcion and later at the behest of Constantine, didn’t codify the NT canon.

However the question is did these books become the Word of God when the Bishops codified them or were they God Breathed at the writing?

The contention of those who argue against Church authority of the Scripture is not that the Church played no role in the establishing of the Canon (that is a straw man argument which is doubtless easy to overthrow but useless because no one actually believes it) but that Scripture, because it is the Word of God, has authority over the Church and did from the second the Apostles’ pens wrote it down.

The strongest argument for this stance is that the Bishops in “establishing the Canon”, declared they received the Canon and not that they declared the Canon.

God Bless
 
bogeydogg said:
No thinking person would person deny that the Bishops, in response to Marcion and later at the behest of Constantine, didn’t codify the NT canon.

However the question is did these books become the Word of God when the Bishops codified them or were they God Breathed at the writing?

The contention of those who argue against Church authority of the Scripture is not that the Church played no role in the establishing of the Canon (that is a straw man argument which is doubtless easy to overthrow but useless because no one actually believes it) but that Scripture, because it is the Word of God, has authority over the Church and did from the second the Apostles’ pens wrote it down.

The strongest argument for this stance is that the Bishops in “establishing the Canon”, declared they received the Canon and not that they declared the Canon.

God Bless
Click to expand...
No catholic believes that the 27 NT books became the Word of God when the Bishops codified them. That would be misrepresenting…Catholics believe that the 27 NT books were God Breathed when written. 👍

So you do believe that the CC played an authoritative role in the establishment of the Canon?
 
From a historical perspective (discounting the influence of inspiration and discernment), the codified canon of the NT came from part perceived Apostolic origin. No book is included that wasn’t written by an apostle or an apostle’s disciple, or attributed to an apostle or an apostle’s disciple within reason, discounting late forgeries that attach the name of an apostle to their work, such as the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Book and Gospel of Thomas, although Clement was apostolic, as was Barnabas, and some included these in the early canon, as evidenced by their inclusion in Vaticanus, and the Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed canonical or semi-canonical status at times, on par with the Didache, the Shepherd, and Barnabas, in small parts of the early Church). Part organic development, and a large part the regional (i.e. Carthage), and later Ecumenical, Councils of the Catholic Church. It’s a complex process, as is evidenced by my confused verbiage here.

It becomes more complex in a sense, but overall much simplified, when one takes in to account revelation and inspiration, which, however, is not an answer to an historical question: it may be why the books are canon, but it’s not how the books are canon (contra some sola scripturists).

However, without the Catholic Church, the notion of closed and unified, universal canon itself would fall apart.

The inimitable Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger wrote an exceptional book on the subject, The Canon of the New Testament: Origin, Development, and Significance.
 
Khalid
Click to expand...
However, without the Catholic Church, the notion of closed and unified, universal canon itself would fall apart.
Click to expand...
I agree, but could you elaborate a little?
The inimitable Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger wrote an exceptional book on the subject, The Canon of the New Testament: Origin, Development, and Significance.
Click to expand...
👍
 
joe370 said:
No catholic believes that the 27 NT books became the Word of God when the Bishops codified them. That would be misrepresenting…Catholics believe that the 27 NT books were God Breathed when written. 👍

So you do believe that the CC played an authoritative role in the establishment of the Canon?
Click to expand...
In so far as preventing the laity and/or heretics from presenting a perverse canon by codifying what the Church had long since received as authoritative? Yes the CC played a role.

In so far as the Church’s stamp of approval adding one jot of authority not already extant in the Canon by the Bishops’ codifying it? Not at all.

God Bless
 
bogeydogg said:
In so far as preventing the laity and/or heretics from presenting a perverse canon by codifying what the Church had long since received as authoritative? Yes the CC played a role.

In so far as the Church’s stamp of approval adding one jot of authority not already extant in the Canon by the Bishops’ codifying it? Not at all.

God Bless
Click to expand...
I totally agree, as do all catholics, that the CC did not add one jot of authority to sacred scripture, unless of course, one is willing to consider the possibility that the authors of sacred scripture belonged to the Catholic Church. After all, we know Ignatius of Antioch was a catholic, and pupil of the apostle John, so logically John must have been a Christian belonging to the CC. If the authors were Christian leaders belonging to the CC then that certainly changes things.

If the authors of sacred scripture actually did not belong to the CC but rather a totally different church, unknown to all, then by whose authority did the CC play such a pivotal role in preventing the laity and/or heretics from presenting a perverse canon, by codifying it? What gave the CC the right to codify anything if the CC was not the church of the apostles? Only the church to which the apostles belonged should have possessed the authority to prevent the laity and/or heretics from presenting a perverse canon - correct?
 
According to F. F. Bruce. Chapter 3 in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (5th edition; Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).

“The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.”

The author was a biblical scholar and a leader in evangelical christianity.
 
Hecares said:
According to F. F. Bruce. Chapter 3 in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (5th edition; Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).

“The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.”

The author was a biblical scholar and a leader in evangelical christianity.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. 👍 And it is because the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century CC included the present day biblical books in her canon, from the very beginning, recognizing them as being divinely inspired, when other books espoused by competing heretical sects, for centuries, from the very beginning, were also cropping up everywhere within the Roman Empire, claiming the same thing - that we can trust what we have, is in fact the divine word of God as opposed to a cheap heretical knock off.
 
joe370 said:
That makes sense. 👍 And it is because the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century CC included the present day biblical books in her canon, from the very beginning, recognizing them as being divinely inspired, when other books espoused by competing heretical sects, for centuries, from the very beginning, were also cropping up everywhere within the Roman Empire, claiming the same thing - that we can trust what we have, is in fact the divine word of God as opposed to a cheap heretical knock off.
Click to expand...
F F Bruce said exactly the same thing I did. I did not say the Church added anything to the Canon as in words or books, unless of course you count the Apostles who certainly were members of the Catholic Church I don’t argue that at all, I said the authority of Scripture is derived from Scripture and the codifying of it neither strengthens nor lessens that authority at all.

God Bles
 
bogeydogg said:
F F Bruce said exactly the same thing I did. I did not say the Church added anything to the Canon as in words or books, unless of course you count the Apostles who certainly were members of the Catholic Church I don’t argue that at all, I said the authority of Scripture is derived from Scripture and the codifying of it neither strengthens nor lessens that authority at all.

God Bles
Click to expand...
I totally agree. 👍
 
joe370 said:
Bart D. Ehrman, former Christian, now agnostic. I am familiar with his deconstruction method and his propensity to misquote, but I will give it a look.
Click to expand...
Hi Joe: Agnostic doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe or is against it. His field of work lends itself to pragmatism. He is one of the most distinguished bible scholars alive, and in no way attacks the message or the authenticity of anyone’s church. He is simply interested in how the Bible evolved from an historical perspective.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Sufjon said:
Hi Joe: Agnostic doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe or is against it. His field of work lends itself to pragmatism. He is one of the most distinguished bible scholars alive, and in no way attacks the message or the authenticity of anyone’s church. He is simply interested in how the Bible evolved from an historical perspective.

Your friend
Sufjon
Click to expand...
Of course. 🙂 I was once an agnostic myself.
 
Sufjon said:
He is simply interested in how the Bible evolved from an historical perspective.
Click to expand...
Using tendentious argumentation and sometimes untenable, rejected (cf. “Forged!”), sometimes sensationalist, theories (although he’s an order of magnitude better than that other popular Bible “scholar”, Elaine Pagels). He’s decent at introducing the field, but does it in a distinctively critical - in the sense of “contra”, not “critical thinking” - way, and is very uneven, not introducing a basis and building on it as one would be taught in a class, but introducing only those parts viewed most sensationally by the general public (like “Misquoting Jesus”, “Forged”, “Lost Christianities”, “Lost Scriptures”), and he loves to redefine words and concepts that are already defined in the academic community - i.e. calling gnosticism and other heresies “lost Christianities”, when it’s been called gnosticism for 1800 years, with other appellations, such as Valentinian, Sethian, etc. for specific branches, which he doesn’t do well with. He’s fast and loose and very muddled: not as bad as the Jesus Seminar or Elaine Pagels (both less scholarly and more sensationalist), but nowhere near a heavy-hitter.

He may be one of the most popular “popular science” Bible scholars alive, but he is in no way in the Big Leagues of RE Brown, Bruce Metzger, William Farmer, FF Bruce, or any number of other scholarly researchers. As I mentioned above, Elaine Pagels is probably the most popular “popular science” Bible scholar alive, or close - if she’s not, Bart Ehrman is - but she’s not even a scholar - more a yellow journalist than an academician. More people have probably heard of Geza Vermes (translated Dead Sea Scrolls with controversial commentary) and Marvin Meyer, or whoever the guy was who translated the most popular edition of the Nag Hammadi library (the one with “child of humanity” instead of “son of man”) than have heard of Bruce Metzger or Raymond Brown. More people have heard of and read Dan Brown, who presents himself (whether he actually did, or whether it was all part of the novel/publicity stunt, I don’t know: I think the latter, but many people thought the former, and bought in to his tripe) as the scholar par excellence, single-handedly breaking down aeons of dogma, than all of the above combined. Michael Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the inspiration for Dan Brown) is probably as well-known and widely read as Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels, and, like Pagels but to an even greater degree, he is an unabashed conspiracy theorist - at least Pagels cloaks her tendentious sophistry in the guise of Christianity-cum-gender-studies.

Popularity doesn’t mean correctness, or even proficiency. One only need look at politics to see that.
 
Khalid said:
Using tendentious argumentation and sometimes untenable, rejected (cf. “Forged!”), sometimes sensationalist, theories (although he’s an order of magnitude better than that other popular Bible “scholar”, Elaine Pagels). He’s decent at introducing the field, but does it in a distinctively critical - in the sense of “contra”, not “critical thinking” - way, and is very uneven, not introducing a basis and building on it as one would be taught in a class, but introducing only those parts viewed most sensationally by the general public (like “Misquoting Jesus”, “Forged”, “Lost Christianities”, “Lost Scriptures”), and he loves to redefine words and concepts that are already defined in the academic community - i.e. calling gnosticism and other heresies “lost Christianities”, when it’s been called gnosticism for 1800 years, with other appellations, such as Valentinian, Sethian, etc. for specific branches, which he doesn’t do well with. He’s fast and loose and very muddled: not as bad as the Jesus Seminar or Elaine Pagels (both less scholarly and more sensationalist), but nowhere near a heavy-hitter.

He may be one of the most popular “popular science” Bible scholars alive, but he is in no way in the Big Leagues of RE Brown, Bruce Metzger, William Farmer, FF Bruce, or any number of other scholarly researchers. As I mentioned above, Elaine Pagels is probably the most popular “popular science” Bible scholar alive, or close - if she’s not, Bart Ehrman is - but she’s not even a scholar - more a yellow journalist than an academician. More people have probably heard of Geza Vermes (translated Dead Sea Scrolls with controversial commentary) and Marvin Meyer, or whoever the guy was who translated the most popular edition of the Nag Hammadi library (the one with “child of humanity” instead of “son of man”) than have heard of Bruce Metzger or Raymond Brown. More people have heard of and read Dan Brown, who presents himself (whether he actually did, or whether it was all part of the novel/publicity stunt, I don’t know: I think the latter, but many people thought the former, and bought in to his tripe) as the scholar par excellence, single-handedly breaking down aeons of dogma, than all of the above combined. Michael Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the inspiration for Dan Brown) is probably as well-known and widely read as Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels, and, like Pagels but to an even greater degree, he is an unabashed conspiracy theorist - at least Pagels cloaks her tendentious sophistry in the guise of Christianity-cum-gender-studies.

Popularity doesn’t mean correctness, or even proficiency. One only need look at politics to see that.
Click to expand...
I was going strictly by their academic credentials.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Khalid said:
Using tendentious argumentation and sometimes untenable, rejected (cf. “Forged!”), sometimes sensationalist, theories (although he’s an order of magnitude better than that other popular Bible “scholar”, Elaine Pagels). He’s decent at introducing the field, but does it in a distinctively critical - in the sense of “contra”, not “critical thinking” - way, and is very uneven, not introducing a basis and building on it as one would be taught in a class, but introducing only those parts viewed most sensationally by the general public (like “Misquoting Jesus”, “Forged”, “Lost Christianities”, “Lost Scriptures”), and he loves to redefine words and concepts that are already defined in the academic community - i.e. calling gnosticism and other heresies “lost Christianities”, when it’s been called gnosticism for 1800 years, with other appellations, such as Valentinian, Sethian, etc. for specific branches, which he doesn’t do well with. He’s fast and loose and very muddled: not as bad as the Jesus Seminar or Elaine Pagels (both less scholarly and more sensationalist), but nowhere near a heavy-hitter.

He may be one of the most popular “popular science” Bible scholars alive, but he is in no way in the Big Leagues of RE Brown, Bruce Metzger, William Farmer, FF Bruce, or any number of other scholarly researchers. As I mentioned above, Elaine Pagels is probably the most popular “popular science” Bible scholar alive, or close - if she’s not, Bart Ehrman is - but she’s not even a scholar - more a yellow journalist than an academician. More people have probably heard of Geza Vermes (translated Dead Sea Scrolls with controversial commentary) and Marvin Meyer, or whoever the guy was who translated the most popular edition of the Nag Hammadi library (the one with “child of humanity” instead of “son of man”) than have heard of Bruce Metzger or Raymond Brown. More people have heard of and read Dan Brown, who presents himself (whether he actually did, or whether it was all part of the novel/publicity stunt, I don’t know: I think the latter, but many people thought the former, and bought in to his tripe) as the scholar par excellence, single-handedly breaking down aeons of dogma, than all of the above combined. Michael Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the inspiration for Dan Brown) is probably as well-known and widely read as Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels, and, like Pagels but to an even greater degree, he is an unabashed conspiracy theorist - at least Pagels cloaks her tendentious sophistry in the guise of Christianity-cum-gender-studies.

Popularity doesn’t mean correctness, or even proficiency. One only need look at politics to see that.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t going by popularity and the argument is a red herring. Yes, Lady Gaga is more famous than anyone you have named, but I wasn’t quoting her. I was posting a lecture by someone who is recognized for his academic achievement and research, which means his work has been scrutinized using exacting an discriminating standards.

-Bart Ehrman: James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

-Elaine Pagels: Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University.

Impressive credentials, and the schools of course speak for themselves. This may or may not hold any weight with you, and of course I don’t intend to tell anyone what to believe. I made the lecture available. You can dismiss it on point, but attacking the credentials of the speaker, while certainly permissible, would be a bit of a stretch in this case.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top