.
**
Continued from above…**
Third Century:
At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.
Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul’s 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.
Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian’s list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).
The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. Note that NO denomination had ANYTHING to do with this - including The Catholic Church. Nothing.
Fourth Century:
By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only “debate” centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.
Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as “spurious” - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)
There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God’s people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.
Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It’s our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as “associated with” but clearly as inferior and below the 27.
Christians clearly had a canon of 27. Note that NO denomination had ANYTHING to do with this - including The Catholic Church. Nothing.
Early Meetings
Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.
The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod, it says that “uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches.” While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a “canonical book” since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone’s mind.
The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. It’s our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).
The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It’s the now familiar 27.
Catholic sometimes claim the Council of Hippo as its own. Even if so, it comes MUCH too late to have had any significance to this issue: the list of books was already largely settled; and that meeting contributed nothing since Revelation (for example) continued to be questioned long after this - so what LITTLE debate existed at the time of Hippo was in no sense or to no degree “settled” by it. It was simply entirely, completely moot to the question.
Augustine (352-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him not follow me, but the divine Scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.
.
.
I’m sure you would agree with me that attending an RCIA class would remove the blinders (only if their hearts are open) for those that don’t believe the Catholic church gave us the Bible. +++
If you think they just said "sure Peter(or who ever was in the spot) what ever you say, I think you might be surprised when we finally know all things on the other side…Whether one was preeminent or not it was a team effort…With just not one see taking the “credit”…As some see to imply…Happy Thanksgiving to all…And to all a good morning…