How early were scriptural works considered scripture?

[guanophore]

Ratification…that’s a clever way of avoiding the discrepancy of dates. Rome makes a decision in 382, but over 10 years later, they feel the need to make that decision again in Africa? If Rome were the cheif church, there’s no need for anyone else to ratify or confirm any of it – all they would do is promulgate the decision of Rome.

What is meant by “chief Church”? Are you saying that the primacy of Rome did not exist? I think this element is also germaine, since it is another of the factors that was taken into account in the recognition of the canon. Rome was seen as having primacy because of the ministry there of Peter and Paul. It was the purity of the doctrine stemming from their teaching and presence there guiding the Church that made Rome an anchor in matters such as the canon.

I don’t think that detracts in any way from the need of other Apostolic sees to make their own recognition.

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], … Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles… this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Irenaeus–Against Heresies, 3, 3:3 [A.D. 189]).

The value of this Apostolic succession together with the purity of the doctrine taught by Peter and Paul is that the teaching of the Apostles was very solid there. This is why a canon recognized by Rome would value it’s consistency with that of Apostolic Teaching. Africa, being further from this teaching, was still using works that were not considered Apostolic, such as the Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Then it remains a non-answer. That’s okay. You’re free to not join in the topic of the thread if you so choose, though I would much prefer it if you actually did.

It was an answer, intentionally not detailed. Here are some references:

Catholic Answers
Article by convert Steve Ray (see section D)
Catholic Encyclopedia
excerpt: Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship.
Some quips from CatholicApologetics.org

 

[MarcoPolo]

An interesting note…

I happened to come across this by St. Frances de Sales in the late 16th-17th century while countering the Protestant Reformation’s new canon said what we still say today:
The Council of Trent gives these books as sacred, divine and canonical: (lists the Catholic canon) The same books were received at the Council of Florence, and long before that at the third Council of Carthage about twelve hundred yearsAnd here are a bunch more articles (mostly focusing on the Deuteros).

 

[RobbyS]

This is, interestingly, the first time I’d heard this. While it would seem to be a strong argument in favor of very early NT recognition (something I’d personally like to see), I don’t think we can jump to this conclusion. As typical for the NIV, footnotes are incomplete.

The Amplified Bible provides something just a little better. I says that (as you mentioned), 1 Tim 5:18 is a reference to Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7. However, further examination shows that Luke 10:7 is itself a reference to Deut 24:15.

In all, I don’t think we can conclusively say Paul was referencing Luke in this instance, but at the same time, I don’t think we can conclusively say he wasn’t. It could be that Paul got it from Luke, or that Luke got it from Paul…or possibly that they both got it from the same Old Testament source independently of one another (as unlikely as that seems).

Paul’s works are usually considered to have come into existence before the gospels, so this doesn’t seem to fit.

True, but it’s interesting to see that none of them seemed to gain wide-spread acceptance.

Was there? Do you have some evidence on this point?

Holding to the model of papal authority for a moment:

313AD - Edict of Milan ends religious persecution of the church. There’s no need to be underground anymore, and letters and information can travel at normal speeds to other parts of the world.
325AD - Constantine convenes the council of Nicea. So Rome’s emperor officially supports Christianity.
382AD - Rome defines scripture canon.

At this point, Rome is known to be the head church, and is no longer underground from persecution. Following the decision made regarding scriptural canon, it’s almost implicitly necessary to see that they spread this information (since they supposedly believed in the infallibility of the pope) to various other churces in different regions (such as Africa). So, they compose a letter and send it via courier (or whatever other means were common at the time).

Even if a man had to walk the distance on foot, there’s just no way that it would take 10 years to get the information from A to B. It doesn’t add up, unless you drop the assumption that Rome’s canon was recognized as valid by Hippo without question. If you drop that, then it makes sense that they would hold a council to decide the issue for themselves.

Please read the original post and answer the question I asked. I didn’t ask how they were preserved, or where they came from – I asked when they were recognized as scripture by the early church.

True, but there were few apostles, and many churches. Paul himself wrote many works during his life. And we shouldn’t think that Matthew or Peter weren’t actively preaching while at the same time writing their respective works.

Peter himself demonstrates that Paul’s letters were read as scripture in the early church – they knew these to be scripture, as did Peter. Sure, I’d have loved to hear the apostles preach too, but that doesn’t mean that the written works didn’t exist, or that they weren’t used.

Just because inspirational speaker X is still alive and preaching doesn’t mean that his books don’t exist, or are invalid in some way.

Continued…

Since the Jews were a literate people, it has always semed to me likely that Christian writings would appear early on. We do not know which ones these were, but maybe some of the canonical books, maybe some that have been lost.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Through the Liturgy the various Scriptures were proclaimed…again, Tradition. How pitiful are those Christians without these Traditions?

 

[kepha1]

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
^click here^

Explanation of Symbols:

• Book accepted (or quoted)
  ? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
  x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited

List of books accepted and rejected
^click here^

 

[PC_Master]

This is an interesting question, and we may not have enough historical documents to really ever know.

True enough – but I’d still like to try.

We can see that Peter considered Paul’s writings as scripture, but it does not specify which, and we know some of Paul’s writings were lost. I think that as soon as the oral preaching was penned it was considered scripture:

That seems sensible. I do wonder if any of the supposed lost works of Paul actually gained wide acceptance in the church.

They recognized the preached message as the Word of God, so therefore, it would not become less so when it was written.

Of course – and those who could not be present to hear the preaching of the apostles would have cherished the written works as soon as they became available to them.

I don’t think we can “put aside” the notion of sacred liturgy. The reason I say that is because it was the use of these writings during Divine Liturgy from the earliest days that was one of the main factors in determining the Scripture. This section of Divine Liturgy, which has not changed since the first century, is called the Liturgy of the Word.

I was referring more generally to the form and structure, which I doubt would be even close to the modern Roman Catholic presentation.

" And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." (Justin Martyr 1st Apology)

Now, bear in mind that this takes after the Jewish custom of, on the Sabbath, reading from the OT scriptures. Also, though this is certainly off-topic, we see no other liturgical form mentioned here. Just a thought.

The question is, are the “memoirs of the Apostles” the four gospels as we know them? Are the “writings of the prophets” the epistles? Could they be Revelation? Jude?

The memoirs of the apostles makes sense to have been at least Matthew, Mark and John. Luke was a gospel, yes, but garnered from a variety of sources, rather than a particular apostle. On the other hand, if you stretch the meaning a little bit, we might be able to include Paul’s works in this (though I’m not sure I’m comfortable with stretching the meaning this far).

The prophets could possibly be referring to the major and minor prophets found in the OT.

Ok, but I disagree about the OT canon. We can even see by the fomentation of debate that Paul caused in the Sanhedrin the effects of the Sanhedrin only accepting the Torah, and not the Psalms and Prophets as scripture.

Bearing in mind that the use of Torah can include much more than the Pentateuch, could you give us a scripture reference for this consideration?

I agree that any scripture is such as a result of divine inspiration. However, the recognition of that fact by the earthly body was necessary.

Was it? What works were being widely accepted by the church at large that Rome/Hippo had to condemn? I’m not talking about small groups of heretics who never gained any kind of mainstream support (Marcionism or Arianism, for instance).

Ancient records indicate that the Epistle of Barnabas, or parts of it were read during Divine Liturgy.
newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

You’ll forgive me, but I didn’t see where it was read during “divine liturgy” in that article, much less any ancient source which makes the claim.

It was certainly widely used in a variety of heretical sects.

Such as? I think we need to be clear about “widely used”. It’s not as though heresy had completely overtaken the church at this point in time.

Why do you say “supposedly decided”? Do you think they did not decide? I mean, do you reject the pronoucement of the canon?

No – rather, I think that what they did was only clarify the well-accepted opinion of the church at large, though I’m still continuing in research to demonstrate that conclusion.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

What is meant by “chief Church”? Are you saying that the primacy of Rome did not exist?

Yes. If such primacy had existed, there would have been no reason for the African bishops to dispute Rome’s actions, nor for them to convene their own meeting to declare what works were canon – they would have simply promulgated information from Rome.

Rome was seen as having primacy because of the ministry there of Peter and Paul.

It’s a nice assertion, but that’s all it is.

I don’t think that detracts in any way from the need of other Apostolic sees to make their own recognition.

What reason is there for them to do so if Rome had settled the matter?

Africa, being further from this teaching, was still using works that were not considered Apostolic, such as the Epistle of Barnabas.

Source? It’s interesting that the canon they decided on didn’t contain such works as those.

It was an answer, intentionally not detailed. Here are some references:

You answered the question of where we get scripture, how it’s preserved and/or how we know scripture is valid. But I didn’t ask any of those – I asked when it was recognized by the church at large as valid. You didn’t answer this, and the questions you did answer are not part of this particular discussion.

Please, stay on topic here. If you want to discuss the validity of canonical works, start a separate topic for that. I’m just working on the history of the recognition of such.

And here are a bunch more articles (mostly focusing on the Deuteros).

Well, it did happen to include one useful article from NewAdvent containing some logical conjecture. But it really doesn’t define anything that we didn’t already cover.

Since the Jews were a literate people, it has always semed to me likely that Christian writings would appear early on. We do not know which ones these were, but maybe some of the canonical books, maybe some that have been lost.

It would seem that Christians who had no ability to hear the apostles speak (in far-reaching places where the apostles did not often travel) would have cherished the letters of Paul, and the gospels at least. It would seem other early writings would have been highly valued as well.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
^click here^

Unfortunately that link doesn’t work for me. Can you check and repost it?

List of books accepted and rejected
^click here^

A very nice list – do you happen to have any resources indicating which of these, if any, gained more than just remote use by small heretical groups?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You answered the question of where we get scripture, how it’s preserved and/or how we know scripture is valid. But I didn’t ask any of those…Please, stay on topic here.

You asked a variety of things in your OP including, **“I’m asking how early individual churches considered these to be valid as scripture.”**So maybe stop trying to tell me I’m off topic?

 

[clmowry]

This came from another thread, but I figured it’s best answered separately:

How early were the various works in scripture each considered as scriptural by the early church?

I’m not talking about canonization here – I’m asking how early individual churches considered these to be valid as scripture. I hope it’s not the contention of anyone here that no one considered any of them as scripture until a council defined them – after all, these councils consisted of bishops, who each would have had to come to the conclusion of the canonicity of the works some time before the respective councils met to discuss the issue. The question is…how long before? A day, a month, a year, 10 years, a generation or more?

I have no idea, but, I think we will find that the date of the “general” acceptance of any given book as scripture will vary from decades to a generations or more after the deaths of the apostles.

I am looking forward to learning what we can on the subject, though I fear as someone has already suggested, the historical record will be insufficient to support any definitive conclusions.

I think trying to keep this discussion separate from the issue of canonization is a good idea.

I think the key issue that necessitated the canonization process was excluding from the cannon those things that had erroneously come to be considered scripture.

But, it might be interesting to consider at the same time when those writing that were “once considered scripture” by some but did not end up as part of the final cannon came to be considered scripture as well.

I would suspect that the documents of the final canon were accepted more broadly and much earlier than those writing that did not make the final cut.

But I’ve been wrong before.

Chuck

 

[CentralFLJames]

It would seem that Christians who had no ability to hear the apostles speak (in far-reaching places where the apostles did not often travel) would have cherished the letters of Paul, and the gospels at least. It would seem other early writings would have been highly valued as well.

It would have been even more unusual for the smaller remote churches to have any copies of rare and hard to get written letters. Christians always assembled together on the day of assembly to orally profess their common faith and to recount the teachings that they had each received and to pray together. There was always some rudimentary form of liturgy that generally proceeded from their common baptismal professions.

I personally do not believe there ever was any wide conscious awareness of NT scripture as a closed set of complete works at all in the early church until the heretics started corrupting the original teachings. It was all oral and a few manuscripts here and there. I think the idea of a cannon evolved only as early Christians began to realize the apostles were dieing off and among themselves started recording their knowledge and collecting the works to be held in custody of trusted members of the Church.

But the real thing that gave us the conceptual notion of a cannon of scripture was the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from teaching errors that began popping up all over the place (as evidence from the large number of spurious works that we do know of). If we look at the number of spurious works compared to those that are now cannon there was a much greater error in circulation in printed form than proper teaching - more than we will probably ever know. We can also assume that there were probably legitimate inspired teachings of the apostles that were lost to us forever but would have been contained in cannon if they had survived.

So, my thesis is that it is ironically through written word that the heretics began to attempt to hijack the early church and gain the most influence over early Christians. I imagine there were quite a few out of work Jewish rabbis and holy people who were watching their careers being destroyed by this Jesus Christ and when they saw a whole new religion starting to sprout they wanted to get in on a piece of the new religion for personal gain. Christianity provided a whole new form of income and social prestige and influence for the corrupt Jewish religious members and I am certain some jumped at the opportunity to get into something new for their own gain. But it was only as a response to these heretics that The Church was compelled to start assembling what she considered hers and where we even get the idea of “cannon”. It was a defensive maneuver not a proactive maneuver.

This reactive vs proactive pattern is still largely seen in the Catholic Church today and is really almost a fingerprint that identifies us traditionally with the early Church. Dogma is declared in response to a heretical teaching to counter it rather than preemptively before it starts to be followed.

James

 

[kaycee]

You answered the question of where we get scripture, how it’s preserved and/or how we know scripture is valid. But I didn’t ask any of those – I asked when it was recognized by the church at large as valid. You didn’t answer this, and the questions you did answer are not part of this particular discussion.

Hi PC,

Good information from Triablogue
triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/canon-of-scripture-1.html
triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/canon-of-scripture-2.html

 

[tdgesq]

Was it? What works were being widely accepted by the church at large that Rome/Hippo had to condemn? I’m not talking about small groups of heretics who never gained any kind of mainstream support (Marcionism or Arianism, for instance).

The Gnostics, the Manichaeans, the Montanists . . . I could go on. If you had read the Gelasian Decree it would become immediately evident to you the variety of heresies that the synod at Rome was attempting to combat:

V. The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:

LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS
. . .
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter
(And a multiplicity of other Gnostic writings are named)
. . .
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use
(This is also a Gnostic work, used by the Manichaeans of which St. Augustine was a member before converting to Catholicism)
. . .
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla
(The Montanists)tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

If you’d like to see some more that were used by the Arians and Semi-Arians, just let me know.

Such as? I think we need to be clear about “widely used”. It’s not as though heresy had completely overtaken the church at this point in time.

“Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it [Epistle of Barnabas], and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read.” newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

I’m not sure why you are taking issue with guanophore’s post on this. He said it was widely read in their church. Just so you know, the Epistle of Barnabas is another book deemed apocryphal by the Council of Rome.

No – rather, I think that what they did was only clarify the well-accepted opinion of the church at large, though I’m still continuing in research to demonstrate that conclusion.

What is the church at large exactly? That’s the question you really need to answer. I suppose if you define “the church” as only those folks who accepted the writings you desire, than all you’ve done is begged the question at the outset. There were a plenitude of heresies and heretical writings in the fourth century. “The Gnostics developed an astounding literary activity, which produced a quantity of writings far surpassing contemporary output of Catholic literature.” newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

I find it extremely interesting that you are looking at “the church” now to determine which writings are canonical and which are not.

Yes. If such primacy had existed, there would have been no reason for the African bishops to dispute Rome’s actions, nor for them to convene their own meeting to declare what works were canon – they would have simply promulgated information from Rome.

You hold to a profound contradiction here. On the one hand you wish to say that the canon of the N.T. was at all times quite well accepted by the church at large. On the other hand you point to regional councils in the early fifth century that were still trying to define the N.T. canon. Of course you use it for the purpose of diminishing the authority of the earlier Roman synod that had already given the definition of Scripture. Isn’t this cutting off your nose to spite your face?

In any case, your conclusions are not borne out by the Council of Carthage (419):

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
. . .

The New Testament.​

* The Gospels, iv. books.
* The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
* The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
* The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
* The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
* The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
* The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
* The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church. Canon 24newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Guess who Boniface is?

The Pope of Rome Elected 28 December, 418.newadvent.org/cathen/02658a.htm

So they ask St. Pope Boniface I along with the other bishops at Rome to confirm this canon. Would you like to revise your theory that the Alexandrians knew about the declaration of the earlier Roman Synod and decided to ignore it?

 

[Camron]

It would have been even more unusual for the smaller remote churches to have any copies of rare and hard to get written letters. Christians always assembled together on the day of assembly to orally profess their common faith and to recount the teachings that they had each received and to pray together. There was always some rudimentary form of liturgy that generally proceeded from their common baptismal professions.

I personally do not believe there ever was any wide conscious awareness of NT scripture as a closed set of complete works at all in the early church until the heretics started corrupting the original teachings. It was all oral and a few manuscripts here and there. I think the idea of a cannon evolved only as early Christians began to realize the apostles were dieing off and among themselves started recording their knowledge and collecting the works to be held in custody of trusted members of the Church.

But the real thing that gave us the conceptual notion of a cannon of scripture was the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from teaching errors that began popping up all over the place (as evidence from the large number of spurious works that we do know of). If we look at the number of spurious works compared to those that are now cannon there was a much greater error in circulation in printed form than proper teaching - more than we will probably ever know. We can also assume that there were probably legitimate inspired teachings of the apostles that were lost to us forever but would have been contained in cannon if they had survived.

So, my thesis is that it is ironically through written word that the heretics began to attempt to hijack the early church and gain the most influence over early Christians. I imagine there were quite a few out of work Jewish rabbis and holy people who were watching their careers being destroyed by this Jesus Christ and when they saw a whole new religion starting to sprout they wanted to get in on a piece of the new religion for personal gain. Christianity provided a whole new form of income and social prestige and influence for the corrupt Jewish religious members and I am certain some jumped at the opportunity to get into something new for their own gain. But it was only as a response to these heretics that The Church was compelled to start assembling what she considered hers and where we even get the idea of “cannon”. It was a defensive maneuver not a proactive maneuver.

This reactive vs proactive pattern is still largely seen in the Catholic Church today and is really almost a fingerprint that identifies us traditionally with the early Church. Dogma is declared in response to a heretical teaching to counter it rather than preemptively before it starts to be followed.

James

Excellent post.

 

[PC_Master]

I have no idea, but, I think we will find that the date of the “general” acceptance of any given book as scripture will vary from decades to a generations or more after the deaths of the apostles.

Perhaps, but I’m looking for specifics. For instance, Peter and Paul were contemporaries, and Peter considered Paul’s writings as scripture, and gives the impression that this was commonly accepted in the churches.

I think trying to keep this discussion separate from the issue of canonization is a good idea.

If only others would try to do the same.

I think the key issue that necessitated the canonization process was excluding from the cannon those things that had erroneously come to be considered scripture.

But, it might be interesting to consider at the same time when those writing that were “once considered scripture” by some but did not end up as part of the final cannon came to be considered scripture as well.
Yes – I’d really like to see that, particularly as it applies on a large scale to the church. Do you have any info to offer?

I would suspect that the documents of the final canon were accepted more broadly and much earlier than those writing that did not make the final cut.

This is my belief too, as well as that the councils that supposedly defined canon were actually doing so only to deal with minor non-canonical books, confirming the view of the majority of the church, but I’m hoping to find some evidence to support that idea.

Good information from Triablogue
triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/canon-of-scripture-1.html
triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/canon-of-scripture-2.html

Thanks for the info. While I didn’t totally agree, it was interesting reading. However, it doesn’t seem to have addressed the issue at hand, instead focusing on canonization.

The Gnostics, the Manichaeans, the Montanists . . . I could go on. If you had read the Gelasian Decree it would become immediately evident to you the variety of heresies that the synod at Rome was attempting to combat:

Assuming that the document you mention is actually in reference to the council in Rome (this is highly disputed), how do you know that any of the groups in question were actually widespread? What volumes did they accept which were also accepted by a majority of the church?

If you’d like to see some more that were used by the Arians and Semi-Arians, just let me know.

I’d like to see anything that was commonly accepted as canon in the church at large.

“Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it [Epistle of Barnabas], and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read.” newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

I’m not sure why you are taking issue with guanophore’s post on this. He said it was widely read in their church.

So the Epistle of Barnabas was never widely read in the church at large? Okay then. Next?

What is the church at large exactly? That’s the question you really need to answer. I suppose if you define “the church” as only those folks who accepted the writings you desire, than all you’ve done is begged the question at the outset. There were a plenitude of heresies and heretical writings in the fourth century. “The Gnostics developed an astounding literary activity, which produced a quantity of writings far surpassing contemporary output of Catholic literature.” newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

But were any of these widely accepted in the church mainstream? All information I can find on heretical writings indicates that they were embraced by only very small portions of the church at any time.

You hold to a profound contradiction here. On the one hand you wish to say that the canon of the N.T. was at all times quite well accepted by the church at large. On the other hand you point to regional councils in the early fifth century that were still trying to define the N.T. canon.

No. The regional councils in the late fourth century (not early fifth century) were simply promulgating what was already well known by the church. If anything, they addressed some small heresies that never were accepted by the majority of the church.

So they ask St. Pope Boniface I along with the other bishops at Rome to confirm this canon. Would you like to revise your theory that the Alexandrians knew about the declaration of the earlier Roman Synod and decided to ignore it?

There’s not even conclusive proof that the Roman council/synod/whatever actually established a canon. And even more than that, that they asked a fellow bishop (not pope, not chief bishop, not successor of Peter, not any other reference to supremacy over other bishops) to confirm [as an equal] their decision, not to approve of (permit) it.

But, regardless, this thread really wasn’t about canonization.

 

[tdgesq]

Assuming that the document you mention is actually in reference to the council in Rome (this is highly disputed), how do you know that any of the groups in question were actually widespread? What volumes did they accept which were also accepted by a majority of the church?

No. Stop. If you can’t even do the rudimentary historical analysis to realize that the only text we have referring to the council of Rome comes from the Gelasian Decree, then no one here should listen to you. You feebly use the council of Rome to try and beat us Catholics over the head with it. Now you question the validity of the only text that references it? Unbelievable.

How do you know any of the groups I cited weren’t widely spread out in the Christian community? You just say it, and therefore, it must be true. An authority unto yourself. Perhaps you can provide some historical evidence.

I’d like to see anything that was commonly accepted as canon in the church at large.

So would I. What is the “church at large” anyway? You never answered that question.

So the Epistle of Barnabas was never widely read in the church at large? Okay then. Next?

Just within the entire Alexandrian church. Is that a big enough deal for you? All of Egypt is publicly declaring an apocryphal text, and you don’t give a damn. It’s just a small little problem, just like all of the other heresies plaguing the Church that you dismiss so lightly. Christians gave their lives over these things PC.

But were any of these widely accepted in the church mainstream? All information I can find on heretical writings indicates that they were embraced by only very small portions of the church at any time.

Then give me your sources. Give me any historical evidence at all.

No. The regional councils in the late fourth century (not early fifth century) were simply promulgating what was already well known by the church. If anything, they addressed some small heresies that never were accepted by the majority of the church.

Wrong. The council of Carthage that I cited was held in A.D. 419. As usual, you have done no historical analysis, given no citations. And you are just plain wrong. The last council of Carthage was held in the fifth century. But you don’t care.

There’s not even conclusive proof that the Roman council/synod/whatever actually established a canon. And even more than that, that they asked a fellow bishop (not pope, not chief bishop, not successor of Peter, not any other reference to supremacy over other bishops) to confirm [as an equal] their decision, not to approve of (permit) it.

Your contention was that the Carthage councils proved that they ignored the decrees of the local council of Rome. I have demonstrated that you are wrong. They asked the Bishop of Rome for assistance. Once again, you didn’t do any historical analysis and now you are shamed because of it. And if it isn’t proof of the need for the Holy Roman Pontiff, then aren’t you once again saying that a significant segment of the church in the FIFTH CENTURY didn’t quite know what was going on with the N.T. canon.

But, regardless, this thread really wasn’t about canonization.

Wow, what a protracted response from you over something (the canon of Scripture) that apparently wasn’t on topic, especially when the thread you started is entitled “How early were scriptural works considered scripture.” The canon doesn’t matter? What is Scriptural matters in this thread PC, and it is quite evident that you haven’t done any historical analysis to back up your position or refute the Catholic position. That tells me that you don’t care. You’ve already made up your mind on the basis of something else - your own unfounded presuppositions.

 

[utunumsint]

It would be interesting to find out how the Protestant reformers determined the canon. Who were they, what were their arguments, what was the processess, then we can conpare it to what we see in early church history.

I don’t really have to time to research it, but this seems like a logical next step, since the reformers clearly differed from the Catholic church on what writtings are considered scripture.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Contarini]

“considering” something as scripture, and it actually being scripture, are two totally different things.

Indeed. The books of the Bible *were *Scripture from the moment they were written. They were not “considered” Scripture until some Christian community began using them as such.

I know that’s not the distinction you are trying to draw, of course.

The Jews had 5 canons of the Hebrew writings/scriptures,

I would like to see evidence for this. The only canonical lists that we have from Second Temple Judaism are practically identical with the “Jamnian” canon, as far as I know. The Qumran community may have had a different canon, but we don’t have an official canonical list from them that I know of (it’s hard to know which of their writings were considered “scripture” and which were just pious writings). The Sadducees allegedly accepted only the Torah, and I presume that this is true, but we do not in fact have any direct evidence to that effect from the Sadducees themselves. Some people talk about an “Alexandrian canon” based on the fact that the deuterocanonicals exist in Greek manuscripts of the OT, but again there is no actual, offical canon extant.

so there was no one set that all jews used and called “scripture”. About the only one most of them agreed on was the pentateuch(first 5 books of the OT).

That appears to be the case. But that is irrelevant to the point at issue. You do not have to have universal agreement for a book to be Scripture. You’d have to ask, universal agreement among whom? The very question makes no sense.

Many people claimed many letters to be inspired scripture, including the gospel of Thomas, etc… But none were considered scripture in an infallible capacity until after the canonization in 382 under pope damasus, and then the ratification of the canon in 393 and 397ad under augustine at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in N Africa.

If by “an infallible capacity” you mean declared by an infallible organ of the magisterium, then I would argue that the category is itself anachronistic. But certainly the councils of Hippo and Carthage, and whatever happened in 382 under Damasus, do not meet the normal standards for infallibility within the Roman Communion as far as I know. Even if they did, this would not be of great interest for the purposes of this discussion unless you could show me that they were so regarded in the early Church. In fact, you’d really have to provided evidence showing that Christians from the first three centuries had a concept of an “infallible declaration” which they recognized hadn’t happened yet, but with criteria which were recognizably met by the fourth-century councils. I wish you luck in such an endeavor!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

FYI In then early 1900’s a fragment of a copy of the gospel of Matthew was discovered in Egypt. Later scientific test determined this copy of Matthew was produced in 66AD. So written copies of the books of the Bible were produced with in 1 generation of the life of Christ.

One scholar (Carsten Thiede) has claimed this. One swallow does not make a summer. The scholarly consensus is against him.

That doesn’t mean that he is wrong. I would love to think that he’s right. But I’m not enough of an expert in the subject to be certain that the vast majority of NT scholars are wrong and one maverick is correct. Are you?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Peter’s death is placed at, what, 65AD by many sources, right? That means that Paul’s writings were considered scripture by one of the twelve, and thus probably by many others. It would seem, in context, that reading Paul’s letters in the churches was not a rare thing. Would you agree?

The only problem is that most scholars think II Peter is not actually by Peter, and was probably written late in the first century or even at the very beginning of the second. I’m on the fence on this, but for purposes of controversial argument we can’t assume that II Peter was written in the 60s.

Are you sure about that? Perhaps it wasn’t explicitly defined as inerrant (not infallible), but it seems to have been treated as such. For instance, Peter’s comments of Paul’s writings seems to indicate that people believed them to be true, including Peter himself.

The word “inerrant” is a bit anachronistic–it has so much baggage that people generally avoid using it for the early Church, though I recognize that there can be dogmatic presuppositions at work on either side (i.e., in favor of using or not using it).

Edwin