Scripture Canon

[Kei]

For one instance of him speaking about the canon,
http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html

I haven’t looked very deeply into it, but generally you’d want writers closer to the time the Canon was defined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, because that’s when questions would start arising to the point that it was felt it had to be settled by council.

 

[adf417]

Serpent_of_Paradise:

The test of a book read in Church has validity, but it’s not the only measure used by the Church in defining it’s Canon.

But it’s the one I asked evidence for. Now please, contribute something else to the topic. I’ve heard all this many times over ad nauseam now.

I have often wondered why the new format here on CAF has only a like button and no dislike button. It just accured to me why.

Still, peace be with you!

 

[SalamKhan]

I haven’t looked very deeply into it

I just want to thank you being honest here. I needed that, I was feeling a bit angry today.

the Canon was defined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage

Would I be able to find a discussion of the Canon in the texts of these Councils?

 

[Kei]

I believe the main discussion in it is just saying that x is in the Canon. For instance,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

So not really in the written parts of the council itself will you find a discussion.

 

[Jeff24]

Oldest list of books considered to be canon is the Muratorian Fragment.

Other lists (all of the lists are the same books):
Easter Letter of Athanasius
382 Synod in Rome, Pope Damasus lists books
397 List from bishops in Hippo asking the “church across the sea” if the use the same books
419 Synod in Carthage - information in list sent to Boniface, Bishop of Rome
682 Council of Trullo - Eastern Church Canon
405 Pope Innocent I - Bp. of Tour’s Letter
1442 Bull of Union
Only in the Council of Trent was it definitively defined, but the Church’s Canon has always been the same.

 

[thistle]

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[Peter_M]

I believe that it is more correct to say that the early churches - at least what we can glean from the writings of the sub-apostolic fathers - recognized certain writings as being of particular value. Some of the NT apocrypha began to be written in the later part of the first century. As time went on the ideas and writings became more and more heterodox, culminating in the gnostic philosophy and writings which became prolific in the 2nd century (as refuted by Irenaeus).

The various heretical conflicts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries strengthened the reputation of the books we have in our Bibles today. Debates occurred over the value of 2 Peter, Jude, even Revelation. The books recognized as authoritative were galvanized in the 4th century councils, and defined as canon in the council of Trent. This was for the most part in response to the Protestant rejection of the deutero-canonical books.