Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[lanman87]

Consensus was never how Church decided things. Was there consensus among Jewish Christians about circumcision of Pagans? Not really. Apostles decided it. Those in authority did… and hence Bishops did. Church is hierarchical in nature.

I didn’t say that consensus is how the church decided everything. But it was how the New Testament came to be the New Testament. The majority New Testament scriptures had been used and understood as scripture since at least the 2nd Century, some even in the first century.

There are thousands of quotes of New Testament Scriptures from the Apostolic fathers. It is hard to quote something that didn’t exist. How did they know what was Scripture, with no council to tell them?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. The Apostolic Fathers did indeed quote what later became the New Testament. The problem was there was so many candidate texts out there that could’ve made it into the canon. Even Saint Jerome didn’t think Revelation belonged in the canon.

It took a Church council in 392 to settle the contention.

 

[adf417]

Most of the books of the NT were recognized as scripture by the entire church during the 2nd Century.

“Most”??? Is that good enough for you?

Anyway, not only were most books of the NT recognized as scripture by the end of the 2nd century, so were many other books and this list of what was considered scripture continued to grow.-

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[lanman87]

so were many other books and this list of what was considered scripture continued to grow.-

but those extra books began to fall out of favor and be excluded. By the end of the third century or around the beginning of the 4th (depending on who you read) we had our 27 books. And certainly by the middle of the fourth century we had our 27 books.

 

[lanman87]

think you’re barking up the wrong tree. The Apostolic Fathers did indeed quote what later became the New Testament. The problem was there was so many candidate texts out there that could’ve made it into the canon. Even Saint Jerome didn’t think Revelation belonged in the canon.

This still begs the question. How did the Apostolic fathers know which books carried the weight of scripture?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

Interesting question, @lanman87.

I answer:

Prior to 392, there was a corpus of texts that were liturgically read at Mass but no canon existed. Some churches accepted some texts and some accepted other texts and rejected the texts other churches accepted.

Contention existed over which texts were to be accepted and which to reject. The process took centuries until the Council of Rome authoritatively defined the canon.

The problem was a matter of standardization and the Magisterium stepped up to the plate admirably.

 

[lanman87]

Prior to 392, there was a corpus of texts that were liturgically read at Mass but no canon existed. Some churches accepted some texts and some accepted other texts and rejected the texts other churches accepted.

But wasn’t the list given by Athanasius in his Festal Letter what the church as a whole had been using, pretty much since the Council of Nicaea and maybe earlier?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

Was Saint Athanasius’ list an official Church wide canon?

 

[Dan_Defender]

This claim of a fallible collection runs directly opposed to Christ’s claim that He would not leave us orphans.

I agree. I point out to Protestants that this verse which they accept:
‘Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.’ - Heb 11:35
is a reference to the events described in 2 Maccabees 7 which they do not accept.
The Church knows better. Enough said.

 

[lanman87]

Was Saint Athanasius’ list an official Church wide canon?

That’s not what I asked. I asked if the church was using his list in the time leading up to the councils that listed the NT canon?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

I believe Saint Athanasius’ list was probably for his own bishopric.

But still: We’re attempting to discern when the canon was established and who established it.

I believe that’s the issue at stake.

 

[lanman87]

But still: We’re attempting to discern when the canon was established and who established it.

Well, my contention is that the earliest Councils that listed the books as a canon didn’'t choose the books but recognized what had already been developed and settled by the church. If Athanasius list was the norm of the 4th Century church (and I believe it was) then my argument has merit. However, if there were competing canons in the late 4th Century and the council chose one, then it hurts my argument.

If there were competing canons can you tell me which books the Council of Carthage rejected?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

What I’ve seen in my research is that the Codex Sinaiticus listed two non canonical books in the mid 4th century. That’s one Bible that doesn’t fit your theory.

So, we see that not every Bible listed the same books.

The earliest codification of Scripture was the Council of Rome in 382. Which included the deuterocanonical books rejected by Protestants.

 

[adf417]

but those extra books began to fall out of favor and be excluded. By the end of the third century or around the beginning of the 4th (depending on who you read) we had our 27 books. And certainly by the middle of the fourth century we had our 27 books.

Correct! And one must not forget the fact that there were a few councils during this exact time discussing this exact subject. It is fitting for the church to end up with a 27 book canon right after these councils. Also, as the graph shows, without some sort of declaration by someone it would seem the growth of these “extra books” was on a very ugly trajectory, would you not agree?

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

But their is chair of Moses, and since Jews were prototype of Church, hence there must be other Chair of authority… and by that logic Church has that chair even now too.

That is right. We follow Peter, and the apostles, as we follow the Word of God, even Jesus in them, and the example of their faith. Successors are only true sucessors and to be followed inasmuch as they follow and exemplify in truth and spirit. That is part of the undeniable prototype.

We are living stones built upon the apostolic foundation, even being son’s of Abraham in the faith.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

Who decides who to follow, @mcq72?

 

[mcq72]

When you said “the other extreme” I thought you were going to say something about fundamentalism. But however you describe it, the bottom line is that Evangelical Protestants – many of them anyhow – want to have their cake and eat it too: I.e. wanting the ultimate “the buck stops here” with the bible, but then turning around and say that he or she knows which writings belong in the bible and which don’t based on personally experience of hearing God’s voice.

Again, partly strawman built around one quote. Most of us do not deny the role of the church, even the Catholic Church, just as you do not deny the personal experience of many of hearing God’s voice on the matter, for those that diligently seek, and study, and pray on the matter, be they teacher, theologian, presbyter/ bishop, lay disciple, together with others, even in council, from day one of a scripture to today. This is our tradition.

 

[lanman87]

Correct! And one must not forget the fact that there were a few councils during this exact time discussing this exact subject.

By the year 300 or so it seems that most of the disputed books had been discarded as spurious. We are left with James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation as books that some accepted and others didn’t. There was a firm consensus of the other books of the New Testament and had been since very early in the church. Especially the four gospels and Paul’s letters seemed to have been accepted as scripture from at least the beginning of the 2nd Century if not sooner.

But by the middle of the 4th Century we see a consensus develop on the other books as well, at least in North Africa and the Western Churches. As evidenced by Athanasius and his Paschal letter and the regional councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th Century. Augustine held great sway with pretty much the entire church in the West and his opinion on the canon ended up being what Jerome translated into Latin which pretty much solidified the canon in the West.

After reading up on it some more, apparently it took the Eastern Churches longer to come to a consensus on the New Testament, in particular to accept the the Book of Revelations.

But in the end both the Western and Eastern churches came to the same New Testament Canon. And then when the Reformation happened the Reformers re-examined the canon of the New Testament and decided to leave it as is.

To me it is a miracle in of itself that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all call the same 27 books the New Testament. That in itself shows me that these 27 books were divinely inspired and given to us by God.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

Interesting post, @lanman87.

You’re accepting my position that it was a process punctuated by councils defining the canon authoritatively.

I don’t see how this bears out your contention that the NT canon was already defined by consensus in the Apostolic Age.

 

[mcq72]

Who decides who to follow, @

There has always been a choice since the Garden.

I can’t decide for you and vice versa.

We must each decide for ourselves.

The Lord says “choose you this day”. “Whom do you say that I am”

Lest you see another straw man, I do not mean unaided by grace, or that we are alone, in a vacuum even, but surrounded by a myriad of voices, (name removed by moderator)uts so to speak, as to what hath God really said. “To Him that hath an ear, let Him hear …”