How early were scriptural works considered scripture?

[utunumsint]

I probably don’t need to tell you that most scholars would put both texts relatively late in the first century, with 1 Timothy maybe even pushing the 2nd century.

I’d be surprised since both Polycarp and Ignatius quote from it. If this were the case, then it would be interesting to find out how two established churchmen such as these would so quickly accept such a new document.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mercygate]

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?

Early. Irenaeus, before the year 200, speaks of “four gospels.” Peter in his second epistle refers to Paul’s writings as “scripture.” By the early 4th century, all but 7 of the 27 books of the New Testament were undisputed.

I think the word “scripture” ossified after the closing of the canon and attained a stature it had not previously enjoyed – not that “scripture” was not venerated and considered inspired before the canon was closed but it now became exclusionary.

With the advent of protestantism, ecclesial authority was rejected, and the mantel of authority fell to “the book” alone, as if it were a sui generis proposition.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No, I didn’t miss the quotes. I chose not to take advantage of them, because I could make my point without them and I didn’t know what you meant by them. The groups I have cited were clearly Christian in the same way that Protestants are Christians. That is all I need to refute your claim.

That is why I chose not to mention the Arians. I would not say that they are “simply not Christians,” but the point is irrelevant. I repeat: there were a number of churches that were just as Christian as the Protestants. If you want to say that all non-Catholics are not Christians, then your point becomes a tautology and your reference to Luther is irrelevant. (But do you really want to say that the Orthodox–who were separate from Rome long before Luther–are not Christians?)

I wasn’t putting forth a standard. I was accepting the one you explicitly used by speaking of Luther as initiating a “Christian” church not part of Catholicism. I would indeed use the word “Christian” more broadly, but we don’t need to fight about that. The only point I’m interested in making is that if Christians were divided after the Reformation, they were certainly divided before it. At the very least, the Chalcedonian Churches of the East (i.e., the Orthodox in communion with Constantinople) are clearly more unambiguously Christian by a Catholic standard than are the Protestants. So no matter how you define Christian, you are wrong.

Edwin

That’s the problem Edwin - I don’t consider anyone Christian who persecutes The Catholic Church and promotes a contradictory teaching that works at cross purposes to Christ and His Church. Catholic Church teaching is that those who consciously reject the Catholic Church go to hell. There may be those “who call Jesus Lord Lord in name only” but by definition there are no Christians in hell. Period. So by the way Christ defined Christians you are wrong - damn wrong.

James

 

[kaycee]

Good, good – so this discussion has some merit after all?

Hi PC,

This should keep you busy for a while.

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bibliology/Formation-of-the-Canon/

 

[Contarini]

That’s the problem Edwin - I don’t consider anyone Christian who persecutes The Catholic Church and promotes a contradictory teaching that works at cross purposes to Christ and His Church. Catholic Church teaching is that those who consciously reject the Catholic Church go to hell. There may be those “who call Jesus Lord Lord in name only” but by definition there are no Christians in hell. Period. So by the way Christ defined Christians you are wrong - damn wrong.

James

But you’re the one who first used the word “Christian” to describe the churches emerging from Luther’s movement. It is foolish and unjust to criticize me simply for taking up the definition that you yourself used as the basis for your criticism of Protestants. I would respectfully suggest that your anger and bitterness (wherever they come from) are not helping you make a coherent case.

Edwin

 

[CentralFLJames]

No, because there’s no reason to believe that this spread to other areas. Thus, when comparing from one region to another, it would be obvious which works were accepted by the majority of the church, and which weren’t. And this is what I’m trying to discern here – a timeline of when the majority of the church embraced each written work as scriptural.

A heresy contained within a small group does need to be addressed, but it’s a far cry from “without these councils, heresy would have overrun the whole church”, which is the position you seem to be taking.

To say that Arianism as a problem was “small” is laughable - it quite nearly split the church. Ironically today is the feast day of St. Athanasius - the Bishop of the Alexamdrian Church.

In 319, he became a deacon, and even in this capacity he was called upon to take an active part against the rising heresy of Arius, an ambitious priest of the Alexandrian Church who denied the Divinity of Christ. This was to be the life struggle of St. Athanasius.

In 325, he assisted his Bishop at the Council of Nicaea, where his influence began to be felt. Five months later Alexander died. On his death bed he recommended St. Athanasius as his successor. In consequence of this, Athanasius was unanimously elected Patriarch in 326.

His refusal to tolerate the Arian heresy was the cause of many trials and persecutions for St. Athanasius. He spent seventeen of the forty-six years of his episcopate in exile. After a life of virtue and suffering, this intrepid champion of the Catholic Faith, the greatest man of his time, died in peace on May 2, 373. St. Athanasius was a Bishop and Doctor of the Church.

This was no small heresy that St. Athanasisus helped put down after tremendous personal persecution.

James

 

[qui_est_ce]

To say that Arianism as a problem was “small” is laughable - it quite nearly split the church. Ironically today is the feast day of St. Athanasius - the Bishop of the Alexamdrian Church.

In 319, he became a deacon, and even in this capacity he was called upon to take an active part against the rising heresy of Arius, an ambitious priest of the Alexandrian Church who denied the Divinity of Christ. This was to be the life struggle of St. Athanasius.

In 325, he assisted his Bishop at the Council of Nicaea, where his influence began to be felt. Five months later Alexander died. On his death bed he recommended St. Athanasius as his successor. In consequence of this, Athanasius was unanimously elected Patriarch in 326.

His refusal to tolerate the Arian heresy was the cause of many trials and persecutions for St. Athanasius. He spent seventeen of the forty-six years of his episcopate in exile. After a life of virtue and suffering, this intrepid champion of the Catholic Faith, the greatest man of his time, died in peace on May 2, 373. St. Athanasius was a Bishop and Doctor of the Church.

This was no small heresy that St. Athanasisus helped put down after tremendous personal persecution.

James

Why should I take your word for it? Cite your source!! Well, we celebrated the feast of St. Athanasius this morning at mass. Our priest is a theologian at the local Jesuit University. In his homily this morning, he mentioned all the things you wrote. Arians must have been pretty powerful if they could get the bishop of Alexandria exiled, wouldn’t you say? I did not ask him for references, because I believe him. I went and look it up, though, because I was interested, especially due to this thread.

Of course, as a Catholic, I wouldn’t go to a Baptist forum to look for anwer on how we got the Bible, and expect they will give me a reply that is acceptable to me.
All PC is accomplishing here is helping Catholics do what 1 Peter 3:5 asks of us:

*Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, * (working hard at the rest of the chapter) “sigh”

From what I gather from posters who have tried Protestant forums, they would have been banned before they even got as far as PC has.

 

[tdgesq]

The authorship and timeline of the Gelasian Decree, which I will research more fully now that you’re insisting on its validity is (this is fact, not supposition) widely disputed. Period. My apologies for being forceful here, but the fact is that scholarly opinion on this item is divided. I can post another thread on this if you really want, but that’ll take more time than I’d like to spend on this one piece of evidence.

The validity or invalidity of the Gelasian decree is not the point. The point is that you need to pick which pony you’re going to ride. The only evidence we have of the proceedings at the Council of Rome are those appended to the Gelasian decree.

My opinion at this point is that I don’t believe we can say for certain that it actually belongs to the council of Rome, though it’s possible its information is accurate.

If it’s inaccurate, then so is your speculation that the Alexandrians ignored it. They can’t have ignored something that didn’t exist.

You’re bringing in part of the topic from the other thread, which doesn’t belong here. Please don’t engage in such thread hijacking. Thank you

Then please explain these quotes from you in this very thread:

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3620300&postcount=9

Again:

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3621686&postcount=17

These were posted by you before I made a single post here. Apparently you participated in hijacking your own thread.

However, I’ll state again that this thread isn’t about canonization – if you want to address that, please start a thread of your own. Thanks!

Then why did you invite all of us in the other thread to discuss the following?

Anyone who wishes to discuss the early formation of scriptural canon, there’s another thread for that now:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3624368

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3624424&postcount=724

You’re right – I’m making an assumption here. However, why should I believe that such heresy was widespread without historical evidence to support such a claim.

1. We know that there were numerous heresies spread throughout the Christian world at the end of the fourth century and earlier. P(name removed by moderator)ointing the number as compared to “true Christians,” is a futile endeavor historically.
2. Even if you don’t accept any part of the Gelasian Decree as an authentic witness, the Gnostic and other heretical writings existed and were relied upon by these heretical groups.
3. These heresies and the written materials upon which they were predicated were persuasive. The greatest western Father of the Church, St. Augustine, was seduced by Manichaeism, despite his parents being Christian.

The foregoing is enough to make it evident that these materials were not only circulated, but were dangerous to the faithful; whether the split of heretics and Christians was 50/50, 80/20, 60/40, 10/90, or whatever else.

In this case, we’re both making assertions. The only difference is that I’m assuming we’d see documentary evidence of how widespread the heresy was, and you’re assuming that we wouldn’t.

I haven’t made any assertion as to “how widespread” the heresies were, as if that is useful inquiry to begin with. It is enough that they existed, that there were many of them, that they relied upon apocryphal material, and that they misled the faithful. If there is any relevance to how many people were heretics, then I guess we’d better consider the Jews who heard the Word and claimed that none of the N.T. books were scriptural. I find it to be a useless inquiry, even if we could ever figure it out historically.

Unlike you, I have provided evidence that it was necessary for councils of Bishops as late as the fifth century to clarify those books that are scriptural in order to combat what were dangerous heresies. And by the way, it would not surprise me that the Bishops of the Church held Christians true to the traditions they received orally and then that were written down.

This is my way of referring to “a majority of the congregations that considered themselves to be Christians”. Is that more clear?

Not really. We don’t have any historical way in the early church of identifying a majority of congregations of people that thought themselves to be Christian. We can see that Tertullian and the Montanists believed themselves to be followers of Christ. The Manichaeans used some of the New Testament works, The Gnostic gospels repeatedly refer to Jesus Christ, Arius was a bishop of the church.

All of these referred to Christ and all believed they had the truth. If you want to at the outset to define “the church” as those who believed exclusively in the true unadulterated teachings of the 27 books of the N.T., then this is a question begging exercise and a waste of time. That looks like how you are defining it to me.

 

[tdgesq]

Now – if you want to claim that any non-canonical work was widely accepted by the church as a whole at some early point in church history, please do so, but provide some sort of further information demonstrating this. Again, this thread is about establishing how early scripture (and I’ll extend this to encompass heretical works) was accepted as scripture by the church at large.

You mean widely accepted by a “church” that already accepted the teachings of the N.T. and not the heretical writings. Any of those who accepted the teachings of the heretical writings are not part of the church to begin with. Question begging and a waste of time. Besides which, I’m not inclined to provide you with any further historical information when you refuse to provide your own and ignore what I’ve already provided.

No, because there’s no reason to believe that this spread to other areas. Thus, when comparing from one region to another, it would be obvious which works were accepted by the majority of the church, and which weren’t. And this is what I’m trying to discern here – a timeline of when the majority of the church embraced each written work as scriptural.

Alexandria had trouble with the canon up to the fifth century. Whether it spread to other areas is irrelevant. It demonstrates that their bishops felt the need to define what is scriptural for the good of the faithful. It would not surprise me though that the bishops of the Church did an effective job in containing it.

A heresy contained within a small group does need to be addressed, but it’s a far cry from “without these councils, heresy would have overrun the whole church”, which is the position you seem to be taking.

I don’t consider my task to demonstrate to you that heresy overran the Church. I don’t need to. I’ll explain why below.

Why do I need to provide sources to counter claims that have nothing supporting them? It’s true that the burden or proof can be tossed around either way, but it certainly is easier to prove that something was in use than that it wasn’t.

I’ve provided evidence that there were multiple heresies extant in the Church that relied upon apocryphal writings and that were serious enough for church councils to do something about. Now it’s obvious you didn’t read them, which is perhaps the source of your confusion. It is equally as obvious that you’ve provided no historical evidence of your own supporting the notion that the majority of people who thought themselves Christian held to the 27 N.T. books scriptural in the absence of the decisions of their bishops.

The last one was indeed in the early fifth century, but many of the others were in the late fourth century (382 [maybe], 393, 397). Anyway, this seems a rather small point, so let’s just drop it.

It’s a huge point. You didn’t even bother to look at the links I provided to the relevant historical evidence, or else you would have seen in large bold letters at the top of the article Council of Carthage (A.D. 419). You didn’t read the evidence you claim you dispassionately desire, but readily challenge it with no historical basis of your own.

As for most of the rest of your post – it’s far too heated for me to address. Please rephrase things in a calmer fashion. Also, I’d like to point out that none of what you’ve said shames me, nor should it. I’m just looking for the truth about an issue – I have no axe to grind. And by the way, if your goal is to shame me, as you seem to have said, I’d suggest you look at your motives for being here. Some prayer might be adviseable too.

I didn’t shame you. You shamed yourself. You claim to seek evidence, but then clearly don’t read what’s been provided. You cite to the Council of Rome when it suits your purpose, then claim its unreliable when it shows the necessity of conciliar action to combat numerous heretical writings. Without ever having read the document, you claim that the councils at Carthage show that they ignored the Bishop of Rome on the issue of the canon, even though Carthage explicitly appeals to Rome for confirmation. What exactly am I supposed to think P.C.?

Your prayers are of course always welcome. But if you don’t want to anger me it would probably work better to read the evidence that’s provided and not speculate about things you’ve never investigated. Otherwise the issue of whether you really care what history has to tell becomes fair game.

 

[PC_Master]

One of the sources we have is the history of reunification. The Church replaced the heretical bishops and had to re-catechize.

Got a link handy?

Well, not blind, unless my seminary professor in early heresies is also blind. However, I do not think he was.

So, in this case, your claim comes second-hand from the teachings of a professor. This does not make for a reliable source, as either you, or your professor, could have misinterpreted or otherwise misunderstood the source you each used. It’d be like me making the same claim to another person and saying “well guanophore told me, and I believe him”. Not really that useful in our discussion, I think.

What about a more open minded approach, PC? Supposing you created a cateagory of “unconfirmed” that would not have to start out as “invalid”?

A claim thrown around without any historical evidence presented is not “unconfirmed”…it’s completely unsubstantiated. This is fairly useless to us.

I think your need for evidence is valid, but your closed attitude makes on wonder what ultimate good any evidence can do…

Closed to what? We’re discussing when scripture was recognized as scripture. I’ve already accepted as possible different authorship dates than I originally held, based on some scholarly evidence and opinion. I’m closed to the notion of Arianism being huge in the church because I don’t see anything that substantiates that, except the one quote from Jerome that the church “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian”, which seems more a literary device than anything, with no specifics provided at all.

When I get back I will dig out my textbooks, and find out where these " blind assertions" came from, since they did not originate from me.

Good – I look forward to some credible source material.

No, you did not miss anything, except an open and charitable attitude.

There’s a difference between charity and giving the benefit of the doubt. I think you’re confusing these. We cannot simply accept that Arianism was threatening to overtake the church without evidence to that point.

This will be difficult, because I think the Church went to great pains to destroy all the gnostic and arian works they could possibly find.

What good is this statement? You’re saying that a church that was largely Arian not only has little evidence of this, but has such because it destroyed that evidence itself? We should at least have some reference by historians and authors as to what portion of the church held to these things, shouldn’t we?

What is that they say, history is written by the victors?

Absolutely – but that doesn’t mean that the opposition was what the victors say it was. And even so, there seems a general lack of any historical evidence to suggest that Arianism was a large movement. On top of that, we haven’t really been presented with evidence that any heretical works were in use by a majority (or even a very large minority) of the church.

Yes, of course, but assuming that any information that comes up is “blind assertion” and “invalid” does not seem like a very open minded approach to investigation.

Assertions without supporting evidence are something I don’t like to deal with. It’s that simple. You can claim Arianism was huge all you like, but I won’t buy it unless you show me soem ancient writings that affirm this.

It’s not grammatically clear whether the phrase “Scripture says” applies to both sayings or only one. I will look into this more. If Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Timothy) is really referring to Luke here, that would have interesting implications for the relative dating of the two documents.

I still think the far simpler explanation is that both got their info from the Old Testament, which Luke is obviously quoting.

It’s refreshing to hear a Catholic say that! I do think that it may have taken a while in many cases–my problem is with the claim that until all doubt is removed a book cannot be considered canonical Scripture.

Is all doubt ever removed in an issue like this? There will always be some nay-sayers.

Handicapped by not being with my library, I am progressing rather slowly, but I did find one scholarly article on the subject of Arianism:

monachos.net/library/A_World_Full_of_Arians

In particular, see footnote # 6, a reference to Jerome who made this observation.

Even the article you linked itself concludes saying that Jerome’s statement is inaccurate. I assume it was simply a literary device to demonstrate a sudden change (I’m guessing the successor of Constantine suddenly being in charge and advocating Arianism).

This is one reason we look to the early liturgies. The Church believes as she prays, so many of these early Traditions are reflected in the liturgies.

And the liturgies you mention simply talk about reading from scripture. They don’t specify which specific works.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Here is a good link with a summary of non-Roman Catholic churches:

salvationhistory.com/library/liturgy/sacraments/eastern.cfm

Most of these communities fell into Arianism in the latter half of the fourth century. This link does not seem to contain any info about that, but it will give you an idea of where we can look for more info.

So, not only did these fall into Arianism (or more likely some form of Semi-Arianism) – though again, we have no source for this claim – but they did so *after *Rome supposedly defined the canon? That would seem to indicate to me that the rise of Arianism wasn’t really even a consideration in the apostolic days, and thus that their works were not accepted at any early time in church history.

That’s the problem Edwin - I don’t consider anyone Christian who persecutes The Catholic Church and promotes a contradictory teaching that works at cross purposes to Christ and His Church. Catholic Church teaching is that those who consciously reject the Catholic Church go to hell. There may be those “who call Jesus Lord Lord in name only” but by definition there are no Christians in hell. Period. So by the way Christ defined Christians you are wrong - damn wrong.

James – you’ve effectively defined Christian as “Roman Catholic”. Thus, you’ve made the term useless (at least by your definition) in this discussion.

For the purposes of this discussion let’s say that Christian refers to those churches which claimed themselves to be Christian, as this is the perspective I’m trying to get at in my studies – what works did those who called themselves Christian accept as scripture, and how early did this happen?

To say that Arianism as a problem was “small” is laughable - it quite nearly split the church.

Where’s your proof?

His refusal to tolerate the Arian heresy was the cause of many trials and persecutions for St. Athanasius. He spent seventeen of the forty-six years of his episcopate in exile.

Got a link handy?

This was no small heresy that St. Athanasisus helped put down after tremendous personal persecution.

A small issue among bishops in one region does not qualify as something that “nearly split the [whole] church”.

tdgesq> You’re just looking to pick a fight, aren’t you?

In any case, the question of what actually happened at the “Council of Rome” is rather moot for this topic. At this point I’m taking the view that Rome didn’t even make any decision on this matter at all, until Trent.

1. We know that there were numerous heresies spread throughout the Christian world at the end of the fourth century and earlier. P(name removed by moderator)ointing the number as compared to “true Christians,” is a futile endeavor historically.

So you’re saying we can’t possibly know that any of the heresies were actually very large at all?

1. Even if you don’t accept any part of the Gelasian Decree as an authentic witness, the Gnostic and other heretical writings existed and were relied upon by these heretical groups.

Certainly heretics would rely on heretical writings and/or doctrines. The works were written for someone. What I’d dispute is that this was in any way mainstream in the church.

If there is any relevance to how many people were heretics, then I guess we’d better consider the Jews who heard the Word and claimed that none of the N.T. books were scriptural. I find it to be a useless inquiry, even if we could ever figure it out historically.

I do believe I quantified the original question to be exclusive to those who considered themselves Christian.

Unlike you, I have provided evidence that it was necessary for councils of Bishops as late as the fifth century to clarify those books that are scriptural in order to combat what were dangerous heresies.

No – you provided evidence that heresy existed. You then claimed (based on specious arguments) that it was enough of a problem that the aforementioned councils had to take action. You didn’t prove that this was necessary, nor did you present a case that the church would have fallen into heresy had this not happened.

Not really. We don’t have any historical way in the early church of identifying a majority of congregations of people that thought themselves to be Christian.

So you’re saying it’s an unanswerable question then?

If you want to at the outset to define “the church” as those who believed exclusively in the true unadulterated teachings of the 27 books of the N.T., then this is a question begging exercise and a waste of time. That looks like how you are defining it to me.

That’s not at all how I’m defining it. I’m defining “the church” as any who considered themselves to be Christian. This would include Arians, etc. The point is to establish whether or not there were any works known to be scripture in the earliest centuries of the church, or if the church was held hostage until Hippo and Carthage resolved the issue.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Besides which, I’m not inclined to provide you with any further historical information when you refuse to provide your own and ignore what I’ve already provided.

I’m not the one making affirmative claims that there were heretical sects that made it necessary for these councils to act. I’ve claimed that II Peter claimed Paul’s works to be scripture (and reference has been given), and I and a few others have shown that a few other early witnesses to a sort of canon do exist (like the Muratorian Fragment). These have been substantiated as actually existing, whereas the supposed massive Arian heresy that required the action of church councils not only seems to have been more of an issue after those councils than before (by the claims made anyway), but also would have had no effect on scriptural acceptance in the first and second centuries AD.

Alexandria had trouble with the canon up to the fifth century. Whether it spread to other areas is irrelevant. It demonstrates that their bishops felt the need to define what is scriptural for the good of the faithful.

Perhaps – but the question that arises is whether or not this was a difficult issue to resolve. Did they have to determine for themselves which books were canonical, or was there a clear underlying tradition to rely on? I tend to believe the latter, but I’m looking for written evidence to support that, demonstrating the acceptance of such canon well before Hippo and Carthage.

I’ve provided evidence that there were multiple heresies extant in the Church that relied upon apocryphal writings…

No arguments here.

…and that were serious enough for church councils to do something about.

The question is whether it was necessary, or just what actually happened. Did the church at large (that is, the majority of Christians) accept this canon previously as scripture? This is what I’m trying to find out.

Thus far, we’ve got indications that most of the New Testament was considered scriptural far before these councils. On the other hand, we have fairly little to indicate that Arian works had similar acceptance by any means.

I didn’t shame you. You shamed yourself.

Uh, okay. Still, if you’re taking the time to try to point this out – it seems your motives are suspect. But continue as you will – such claims don’t bother me too much (it’s mostly the principle of slander that gets at me).

What exactly am I supposed to think P.C.?

You’re thinking that I’m still trying to discuss the canonization issue, when I’m not. I’m not sure why you’re so focused on it. Besides, the more I read, the more the evidence says that there wasn’t any infallible declaration of canon in the RCC until Trent.

But if you don’t want to anger me…

I’m not concerned with whether you’re angered or not. I cannot, and would not wish to, control your actions or emotions. If you really are becoming so emotionally involved in this, however, I recommend, as always, that you step back from this until you can approach it calmly. Anger usually doesn’t result in objectivity.

…it would probably work better to read the evidence that’s provided and not speculate about things you’ve never investigated.

False on both points – I have read nearly every piece of information thrown my way (admittedly I haven’t reread all the ECFs, nor have I read Newman’s essay, which I’ve been meaning to do – I just don’t have enough time). When I make a claim, I’ve usually read something about it, and that you don’t agree with the angle I take on something doesn’t mean I haven’t read what you’ve presented.

Otherwise the issue of whether you really care what history has to tell becomes fair game.

Let me clarify it for you – my entire purpose here is to find out what history has to tell. For you to assume otherwise is simply false. Present disproof of my arguments – fine. But don’t attack my character – it helps noone. I mean, I guess it might help you appear to win an argument, so if that’s your goal, go on ahead. If you’re insterested in the truth, however, let’s just get to presenting the evidence, shall we?

I’ll let you guys start with presenting something that claims Arian and other works were either (a) accepted by a majority of the church or (b) enough of a problem that it was necessary for the councils to take action, lest the whole church fall into heresy. Then I’ll (re)present evidence in support of the gospels and the works of Paul being considered scripture by at least the end of the second century, with at least some claim of widespread acceptance, if not substantially before.

 

[guanophore]

But you’re the one who first used the word “Christian” to describe the churches emerging from Luther’s movement. It is foolish and unjust to criticize me simply for taking up the definition that you yourself used as the basis for your criticism of Protestants. I would respectfully suggest that your anger and bitterness (wherever they come from) are not helping you make a coherent case.

Edwin

I will second that motion. In his zeal for defending his beliefs, James does tend toward becoming a centrality of flame at times.

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

 

[guanophore]

Got a link handy?

Not yet. In those days (I went to seminary a lifetime ago) it was all heavy textbooks, but I will dig them out.

I did find a link to one of the earliest Eusebian lists

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

Do I rightly presume that you are most interested in the first two categories? Specifically, what is the earliest evidence we have that these works were recognized as Scripture?

So, in this case, your claim comes second-hand from the teachings of a professor. This does not make for a reliable source, as either you, or your professor, could have misinterpreted or otherwise misunderstood the source you each used. It’d be like me making the same claim to another person and saying “well guanophore told me, and I believe him”. Not really that useful in our discussion, I think.

It is true that I am going from memory with the lecture material, but we did read what primary sources were available. These I have mentioned to you, including this early categorical listing by Eusebius, the council writings, and some secular history sources on disputes that riddled Christendom.

A claim thrown around without any historical evidence presented is not "unconfirmed"...it's completely unsubstantiated. This is fairly useless to us.

I was talking about you attitude, PC. You seem to approach the exploration of the subject matter with negativity and cynicism.

Closed to what? We’re discussing when scripture was recognized as scripture. I’ve already accepted as possible different authorship dates than I originally held, based on some scholarly evidence and opinion. I’m closed to the notion of Arianism being huge in the church because I don’t see anything that substantiates that, except the one quote from Jerome that the church “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian”, which seems more a literary device than anything, with no specifics provided at all.

Closed to whatever might come up that does not fit with your preconceived notions of how history occurred, perhaps? I am glad to see that you have revised some of your preconcptions by virtue of the facts, this is refeshing.

“I am closed to the notion” is an example of what I am talking about. This is not a productive scientific attitude. What if you started with at least a hypothesis? Supposeing what Jerome wrote were a hypothesis to explore? If one is closed before exploration begins, it is difficult to discover things.

There’s a difference between charity and giving the benefit of the doubt. I think you’re confusing these. We cannot simply accept that Arianism was threatening to overtake the church without evidence to that point.

I am not asking you to accept it without evidence, just to be open to explore the evidence that might be available. “closed” just does not seem like it would predispose one to learning.

What good is this statement? You’re saying that a church that was largely Arian not only has little evidence of this, but has such because it destroyed that evidence itself? We should at least have some reference by historians and authors as to what portion of the church held to these things, shouldn’t we?

Yes. I am just pointing out that this has been the practice of the Church from the begining. Burn the bad books.

Absolutely – but that doesn’t mean that the opposition was what the victors say it was. And even so, there seems a general lack of any historical evidence to suggest that Arianism was a large movement. On top of that, we haven’t really been presented with evidence that any heretical works were in use by a majority (or even a very large minority) of the church.

In truth, the Arians made their points as much with approved canonical books as with any other documents.

Here is a link from one of my Profs

bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233

It specifies early fathers referring to the NT works and dates they were using it. These demonstrate a very early acceptance of most of the NT works as received on the level of scripture, according to Geisler.

 

[guanophore]

Got a link handy?

ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

A claim thrown around without any historical evidence presented is not “unconfirmed”…it’s completely unsubstantiated. This is fairly useless to us.

Do you recognize or accept the Nicean creed? I know there are many Sola Scriptists that don’t.

Do you not agree that the Nicean creed was developed to combat the Arian heresy?

Here as some names of some of the Arians from Athanasius writings:

Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoïus, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops.

So, not only did these fall into Arianism (or more likely some form of Semi-Arianism) – though again, we have no source for this claim – but they did so that would seem to indicate to me that the rise of Arianism wasn’t really even a consideration in the apostolic days, and thus that their works were not accepted at any early time in church history.

Yes, I agree we can say this with certainly, since Arius (AD 250-336) was not alive in Apostolic times. The most detailed and extensive evidence we have are the polemics of Athanasius. Do you consider these historical evidence?

Do you find it unlikely that Catholics would burn the documents considered heretical?

 

[guanophore]

No – you provided evidence that heresy existed. You then claimed (based on specious arguments) that it was enough of a problem that the aforementioned councils had to take action. You didn’t prove that this was necessary, nor did you present a case that the church would have fallen into heresy had this not happened.

Let’s look at some Geography, shall we?

Arius is working and publishing in Alexandria, Egypt. Constantine, in Rome, across the Med Sea wants the controversy settled for economic reasons (disputes and heresies are bad for business). He calls a council in Nicea, which is in modern day Turkey. Don’t you think that covers a lot of ground? If it were just local to Alexandria, why not have the council in Egypt?

Here is an interesting article with references to who was there, and why they met.

 

[tdgesq]

You’re just looking to pick a fight, aren’t you?

No, but isn’t that slightly uncharitable of you to question my motives?

In any case, the question of what actually happened at the “Council of Rome” is rather moot for this topic. At this point I’m taking the view that Rome didn’t even make any decision on this matter at all, until Trent.

Good for you. Please admit that then that the multiple references you made earlier to the Council of Rome are invalid as well as your arguments based upon that council.

So you’re saying we can’t possibly know that any of the heresies were actually very large at all?

Correct. Much less how many within “the church at large” accepted Scripture.

Certainly heretics would rely on heretical writings and/or doctrines. The works were written for someone. What I’d dispute is that this was in any way mainstream in the church.

Is the “mainstream church” also the “church at large”? Assuming that it is, you are still engaging in a circular argument. This is the last time I’ll explain, since I have to believe everybody else reading this understands by now. You define the church at the outset as that body of believers who always understood the 27 writings that now constitute the N.T. canon as “the church at large.” Therefore, there isn’t any issue to debate with you, because you’ve already begged the question. How about this. How about we try to discover if there was general acceptance of the N.T. books without the assistance of the bishops of the ancient Church. I bold that just in case you don’t try to answer it later.

I do believe I quantified the original question to be exclusive to those who considered themselves Christian.

You mean you qualified the original question. Then explain the Judaizers. For that matter, explain any of those Jews that believe Jesus Christ to be a prophet, yet reject the writings of his apostles. When you say “those who considered themselves Christian,” you by necessity assume that those who considered themselves “Christian” believed certain things. And as happenstance would have it, those certain things are what are contained in the 27 volumes we now call the New Testament. You don’t see it, but I assure you that others here do.

No – you provided evidence that heresy existed. You then claimed (based on specious arguments)

Please show in detail which of the arguments I presented a are specious.

that it was enough of a problem that the aforementioned councils had to take action. You didn’t prove that this was necessary, nor did you present a case that the church would have fallen into heresy had this not happened.

I don’t need to prove it happened to your satisfaction, nor have I ever attempted to. Neither am I required to demonstrate that the church would have fallen into heresy without the presence of the councils of bishops. What I have done is this:

1. We know that there were numerous heresies spread throughout the Christian world at the end of the fourth century and earlier. P(name removed by moderator)ointing the number as compared to “true Christians,” is a futile endeavor historically.
2. Even if you don’t accept any part of the Gelasian Decree as an authentic witness, the Gnostic and other heretical writings existed and were relied upon by these heretical groups.
3. These heresies and the written materials upon which they were predicated were persuasive. The greatest western Father of the Church, St. Augustine, was seduced by Manichaeism, despite his parents being Christian.
4. The foregoing is enough to make it evident that these materials were not only circulated, but were dangerous to the faithful; whether the split of heretics and Christians was 50/50, 80/20, 60/40, 10/90, or whatever else.

That is more than enough, completely ignoring the historical reason why councils met in the first place, to demonstrate that the early local councils of the Church did define what books are scriptural to combat the heretical writings that had infiltrated the early Church.

What have you provided in response? Nothing. In all of the posts that you’ve given in this thread you have not linked to a single authority that supports an opposite claim. In fact, you haven’t linked to anything at all on this thread.

 

[tdgesq]

So you’re saying it’s an unanswerable question then?

I’m saying that the precise number of “heretics” vs. “Christians” in the first five centuries of the Church is an unanswerable question. The number of heresies and their influence on the faithful are quite evident.

That’s not at all how I’m defining it. I’m defining “the church” as any who considered themselves to be Christian.

And how do we figure out those “who considered themselves to be Christian”? This is only the second question I’ve asked you.

I’m not the one making affirmative claims that there were heretical sects that made it necessary for these councils to act.

Obviously. You are the one making the affirmative claim that the majority of the “church at large” accepted the 27 books of the New Testament, no more and no less, as the inspired word of God, otherwise know as the canon of the N.T - without the necessity of their bishops.

I’ve claimed that II Peter claimed Paul’s works to be scripture (and reference has been given), and I and a few others have shown that a few other early witnesses to a sort of canon do exist (like the Muratorian Fragment).

Well, wouldn’t you first have to figure out whether II Peter was scriptural? Second Peter isn’t contained in the Muratorian Fragment. On top of which Contarini soundly rebuffed your unsupported claim that II Peter is first century. I agree with him. And by the way, this is the only citation to any authority in this entire thread that you’ve given to support your claim. Prove me wrong. Show me something else you’ve cited to (not linked to since we already know there aren’t any) that support your claims.

I put my historical analysis above against yours, which is nothing. Zero. You are left with the argument that the councils made a superfluous declaration on the canon. It was mere surplusage with no reason behind it. In other words, I’ve provided evidence, whereas you have provided none.

The question is whether it was necessary, or just what actually happened. Did the church at large (that is, the majority of Christians) accept this canon previously as scripture? This is what I’m trying to find out.

Let me reiterate for the last time: there were multiple heresies in the early church that relied upon apocryphal documents. These drew Christians away from the true Church. Is it more likely that the councils that defined the canon were doing it for no reason, or that they were trying to protect the faithful? Since you have provided zero evidence for the first proposition, and I have provided considerable evidence for the latter, my guess is that most folks are going to reject your explanation.

Thus far, we’ve got indications that most of the New Testament was considered scriptural far before these councils. On the other hand, we have fairly little to indicate that Arian works had similar acceptance by any means.

We do? Nothing quoted or linked by you. Perhaps you could link me up with these sources. I mean, you claim that everything you’ve read leads you to believe in the Scriptural nature of the 27 books we now call the N.T. Please link to your sources. Let’s see if you actually do this.

You’re thinking that I’m still trying to discuss the canonization issue, when I’m not. I’m not sure why you’re so focused on it. Besides, the more I read, the more the evidence says that there wasn’t any infallible declaration of canon in the RCC until Trent.

Because you told all of us in the last thread that’s what you wanted to talk about here. Shall I link once again to your own words on the matter? Please, give us some of these sources that you’ve read so we can read them for ourselves.

I’m not concerned with whether you’re angered or not. I cannot, and would not wish to, control your actions or emotions.

Then were you lying to me when you said this in your earlier post:

I’ll pray for you (and I don’t mean that to be a snide comment or any sort of social engineering – I genuinely will be praying that God will calm your spirit and allow you to look at this with a bit less anger).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3630428&postcount=49

It appears to me that you’ve feigned praying for me in an attempt to garner some sympathy. Such a thing is a sin in the Catholic faith.

False on both points – I have read nearly every piece of information thrown my way (admittedly I haven’t reread all the ECFs,

Really? Did you read the links that I provided you before responding? It’s a simple question - yes or no? A little bit difficult to explain how you missed the date of the final Carthage council then.

I’ll let you guys start with presenting something that claims Arian and other works were either (a) accepted by a majority of the church or (b) enough of a problem that it was necessary for the councils to take action, lest the whole church fall into heresy. Then I’ll (re)present evidence in support of the gospels and the works of Paul being considered scripture by at least the end of the second century, with at least some claim of widespread acceptance, if not substantially before.

Why should I? I could easily present the Arian position and their association with Gnosticism, but why should I? You didn’t read what I presented the last time. You pretended to pray for me. You haven’t provided a single source (1 Tim 5:18 notwithstanding) or link to anything that refutes my position. I have no reason to honor your request.

 

[PC_Master]

Do I rightly presume that you are most interested in the first two categories? Specifically, what is the earliest evidence we have that these works were recognized as Scripture?

Correct. And while Eusebius’ list certainly seems to indicate that the non-canonical works were not accepted as scripture in his day, some 50 years before the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, I was hoping to find something a bit earlier, close to being contemporary of the apostles (if that’s possible), or as close to that as we can get. Still, it would seem clear that this was fairly well established in the church before these councils met.

It is true that I am going from memory with the lecture material, but we did read what primary sources were available.

I don’t doubt your sincerity here – it’s just a matter of being human. Humans can and do mess up, especially when it comes to remembering things. Thus, I like to see the original sources, not simply accept claims that “this is how it was”. It’s nothing personal.

These I have mentioned to you, including this early categorical listing by Eusebius, the council writings, and some secular history sources on disputes that riddled Christendom.

But every article presented on Arianism leaves me with the distinct impression that it was only a small thing within the church. Further reading seems to indicate that the reason for a lot of these councils may have been political in nature (especially Nicea), fearing some kind of disunity that very well may have never spread much wider than it was. Useful for attempting to crush heresy, perhaps, though it’s obvious that these bishops who were heretical didn’t accept the “rulings” of these groups.

My question remains this – if the councils had not happened, what would it have changed? The vast majority of the church was already in favor of the Nicene creed, and apparently of the canon, well before these councils. This means that the council was a sort of formality more than anything.

I was talking about you attitude, PC. You seem to approach the exploration of the subject matter with negativity and cynicism.

I’m a skeptic to many things – this doesn’t mean that I won’t accept them if reasonable evidence is presented. I cannot, however, adopt the position that all claims made are true until disproved.

Closed to whatever might come up that does not fit with your preconceived notions of how history occurred, perhaps?

I try to form my views of history based on the evidence, not my views of evidence based on my desire of history.

“I am closed to the notion” is an example of what I am talking about.

To clarify (or perhaps to present my opinion more correctly) – I am not willing to accept as fact that Arianism was a huge thing unless evidence to that effect can be presented. It’s not that I reject any possibility – I just am not open to accepting it given the current information available to me.

In truth, the Arians made their points as much with approved canonical books as with any other documents.

While that’s certainly possible (it seems plausible to me, though I have no sources at hand to confirm this), it doesn’t do much to help us determine if any non-canonical works were considered scripture by more than a small minority.

Here is a link from one of my Profs

bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233

It specifies early fathers referring to the NT works and dates they were using it. These demonstrate a very early acceptance of most of the NT works as received on the level of scripture, according to Geisler.

Nice article. In specific, the argument that the gospels don’t reference the destruction of the Temple in 70AD has always been a strong one for me – the gospel authors even reference Christ speaking of the temple being torn down, without making reference to the destruction of that temple. It just doesn’t fit, unless you assume a pre-70 date of authorship. Even references to Peter as though he were alive indicate dating of the Pauline epistles as prior to Peter’s death.

ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

Decent overview, but it doesn’t do much to help the topic, as it seems not to mention anything about specific scriptural or non-scriptural works.

Do you recognize or accept the Nicean creed? I know there are many Sola Scriptists that don’t.

In its original (Nicean) form? I would say that my belief on the views of those bishops, and what they were trying to combat, matches my own. However, I’m not a sola scripturist. Neither do I like the term trinitarian, as I believe many people don’t understand it properly, and in fact almost see it as a sort of mystical tri-theism, far too separate to be of the same spirit.

The filioque and the additions from Constantinople (381) are useless in terms of clarifying the underlying theology.

Do you not agree that the Nicean creed was developed to combat the Arian heresy?

Yes. What that doesn’t tell us, however, is actually how wide-spread Arianism was (for the meeting was convened for whatever reason Constantine decided it was necessary – not because the bishops decided “hey, we need to do something about this”), nor does it tell us what (if any) other works were accepted as scriptural, or how early this happened.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Here as some names of some of the Arians from Athanasius writings:Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoïus, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops.

Thanks for providing the source, by the way. Here we have, what, fourteen names? Let’s use 15 for easy division. Nicea was attended by ~300 bishops (that’s just bishops), and with adding legates, deacons, and other non-bishops in attendance could have been as high as around 1,500 people (I forget exactly where that number came from – I’ll look it up if you want me to). We’re talking about less than 1% of those at the council. Now, on top of that, there were supposedly 1,800 bishops invited to this council, and if we assume a proportional number of other individuals in the church (not lay-people), we’re up to 9,000 (possibly higher). We’re talking about somewhere around 0.15% of the church listed as being involved in this heresy.

They spoke out at schools in Alexandria, and thus got Constantine’s attention – but is there reason to believe the church on its own would have considered it a substantial threat?

Yes, I agree we can say this with certainly, since Arius (AD 250-336) was not alive in Apostolic times. The most detailed and extensive evidence we have are the polemics of Athanasius. Do you consider these historical evidence?

Sure – but it’s not an exhaustive source which will answer my question, if I understand correctly.

Do you find it unlikely that Catholics would burn the documents considered heretical?

No, I don’t find that unlikely – what I find unlikely is that there would be no historical reference thereto. For instance, in the case of Arius, his writings are quoted and referenced in many places. Lists of those who fell into the heresy exist.

But to think that there were early Christians who, as a majority, accepted heretical works as scripture, but having all evidence of that eventually destroyed with nothing left to indicate to us that this ever happened – it seems unlikely.

Arius is working and publishing in Alexandria, Egypt. Constantine, in Rome, across the Med Sea wants the controversy settled for economic reasons (disputes and heresies are bad for business). He calls a council in Nicea, which is in modern day Turkey. Don’t you think that covers a lot of ground? If it were just local to Alexandria, why not have the council in Egypt?

You make a valid point, but I’ll again point out that the motivations for this council were political in nature. I somehow doubt Constantine actually cared which way the discussion went, so long as there was agreement. After all, he wasn’t reported to be a Christian at this time.

tdgesq> I’m done debating with you for the time being. Your hatred clouds your judgement. You seemingly intentionally misinterpret what I’ve said in an attempt to get some traction in this debate, rather than presenting evidence to support your claims. However, as one last bit (and you may feel free to say all you like after this – I just won’t be responding until you can become more reasonable), let me clarify:

I do not hold that one must have held to the 27-book NT canon to be “Christian”. What I was, and still am looking for is those who considered themselves to be Christian – what books did the majority of them espouse as scripture? Whether they were arians or montanists or any other heretical group you wish to name – if they called themselves Christian, we can consider them here. That includes the Judaizers.

Now, if you have evidence that identifies specific works, or groups of works, as being held by the mainstream church (that is, again, a majority of those who considered themselves Christian), do offer it here. But don’t keep going on with the ad hominem attacks. I haven’t presented a lot of evidence on canonization because that’s not the point of this thread. Neither is it about whether there were heretical groups in the church, which seems to be what you’re focusing on. This thread is about how early scripture (and/or other works) was accepted as scripture. Canonization happened, supposedly, in the late fourth century or later. We’ve already seen evidence dated well before this from multiple sources indicating that these works were well accepted before then, and nothing at all to espouse heretical works as being at all widespread, especially in the early days of the church, so discussing things into the fifth century and beyond seems useless.

That is, unless your contention is that the tradition of which works were scripture was insufficient for the majority of the church (I’m not talking about the minority heretical groups, for obviously even church councils weren’t enough for them). If that’s your contention, then perhaps your arguments will still help. If you’re just going to keep going with your ad hominems, please go elsewhere.

Finally, guanophore, I’d like to thank you for your recent contributions to the thread – I think you’re helping us/me get somewhere in this search.

Keep the info coming folks – the earlier the date, the better. Specifically, if we can find evidence that heretical works were in widespread use at any time before the late fourth century, that might be helpful.