Was inspired scripture ALREADY well known before the council compiled the bible?

[excaliber]

Was it already well known what was and wasn’t scripture before the council’s.
So that the Catholic church just compiled what everyone already knew was scripture and needed no guidance from God in doing so?

 

[Hatikvah]

Was it already well known what was and wasn’t scripture before the council’s.
So that the Catholic church just compiled what everyone already knew was scripture and needed no guidance from God in doing so?

I’m going to use quotes from a nice theology website here.

*Now, from one perspective, I understand what these authors are trying to say. Certainly none of the NT authors wrote with an awareness of a 27 book canon and understood their place in it. They could not have fully foreseen the shape and scope of this collection. But, these scholars imply that there was no authoritative intent when the NT authors wrote—and that is a very different thing. McDonald even declares, “[Paul] was unaware of the divinely inspired status of his own advice.”[3]

But, is it true that the NT authors had no awareness of their own authority? My contention here is simple: the NT authors show evidence that they understood their writings to contain authoritative apostolic tradition. Since the apostles were commissioned by Christ to speak for him, and were empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so, then these writings would have borne the authority of Christ himself. Thus, whether we call these books “Scripture” is a bit beside the point. To the earliest Christians, they were “the word of God.”
*

There’s evidence on that link’s page itself from Scripture and perhaps from some other documents: it’s been a while since I’ve read through it.

 

[ricmat]

Was it already well known what was and wasn’t scripture before the council’s.
So that the Catholic church just compiled what everyone already knew was scripture and needed no guidance from God in doing so?

The reason the church needed a “Bible” (including the NT) was that there were all sorts of bogus writings in circulation, along with the good stuff. And the church wanted a body of good scripture so that the same readings were used worldwide on any given day.

So the general answer is - no, everybody did NOT know what was and wasn’t scripture. If everybody already knew that the bad stuff wasn’t inspired scripture, then why was the bad stuff circulating?

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church - which (amongst other things) is to say that the formal decisions of his church on earth would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the church was following the Holy Spirit in defining the contents of the NT.

 

[commenter]

The reason the church needed a “Bible” (including the NT) was that there were all sorts of bogus writings in circulation, along with the good stuff. And the church wanted a body of good scripture so that the same readings were used worldwide on any given day.

So the general answer is - no, everybody did NOT know what was and wasn’t scripture. If everybody already knew that the bad stuff wasn’t inspired scripture, then why was the bad stuff circulating?

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church - which (amongst other things) is to say that the formal decisions of his church on earth would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the church was following the Holy Spirit in defining the contents of the NT.

IN HINDSIGHT we can say certain writings are “bad stuff”, in the sense they depart from the established doctrinal norm. But where did that template come from? It is useless to claim the template - or “orthodoxy” - came from the New Testament, since it preceded the NT. Some would argue that the gnostic writings, for instance are “obviously” not inspired, since they were written by heretics. But that is because the Magisterium developed one list of heretics, and another list of Early Church Fathers. Thus, the Magisterium preceded and caused the template, of true Christian teaching.

Protestants, and liberals in general, try to refute the Magisterium by saying all they did was ratify what was more or less going down the track anyway, like a Notary Public. They argue that the canon was already evident in the work of the scholars, the worshipping communities, and “Tradition”, as if Tradition was a free floating, self-evidencing process.

The reality is that only a centralized, accepted authoritative agency could have rejected:

• most Christian books proposed as not scriptural
• many, probably most Christian scholars as heretics, or unreliable
• most Christian traditions as not part of Sacred Tradition

Without the single Magisterium, the NT canon would likely have 270 books.

 

[cjb_914]

Ultimately, no it wasn’t, otherwise the church wouldn’t have needed to explicitly defined it. As in this related answer:
catholic.com/quickquestions/was-the-canon-of-scripture-determined-before-the-church-councils-that-decided-it

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Nope!! Known but not well known,

Check out the Muratorian fragment

Oldest book listing we have in the early church and the list doesn’t line up with what we have today or what Pope Damasus decreed in 382 AD.

Around 300+ books vying for canonization in the early church. Some of which are still useful works for today, just not considered scripture.

This is why I say that all Christians, everywhere, are trusting in a human source outside the bible to tell them what is inspired.

Pax

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Was it already well known what was and wasn’t scripture before the council’s.
So that the Catholic church just compiled what everyone already knew was scripture and needed no guidance from God in doing so?

Short answer is No. Most Christians agreed on Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts, but that was about it. This is one reason why we needed a Church with a teaching authority.

Some Protestants will make this argument that everyone just intuitively knew about the books of the Bible, but the history is quite different.

 

[susanlo]

I think most books were accepted as Scripture right away. Paul’s letters clearly show that he was aware that he was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There were a few books in question in the early centuries.

In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites Luke 10:7 “The worker deserves his wages.” In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. So that is 1 gospel and the 13 letters of Paul accepted in the apostles’ generation.

Many of the early theologians wrote commentary on multiple books of the New Testament. I heard somewhere that 26 of the 27 books were quoted from in the first 300 years. (Excludes 3 John).

The Muratorian Canon which was discovered and believed to be from the 2nd Century lists 22/27 books leaving out: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also includes a NT book of the Wisdom of Solomon.

When Eusebius wrote the first Church History book in the 4th century he states that the 5 disputed books were: James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John.

Did any early theologians give quotes from a gnostic or spurious writing? I wonder if there is evidence that the knowledgeable Christian scholars of the day were confused by the Gnostics.

 

[adf417]

Nope!! Known but not well known,

Check out the Muratorian fragment

Oldest book listing we have in the early church and the list doesn’t line up with what we have today or what Pope Damasus decreed in 382 AD.

Around 300+ books vying for canonization in the early church. Some of which are still useful works for today, just not considered scripture.

This is why I say that all Christians, everywhere, are trusting in a human source outside the bible to tell them what is inspired.

Pax

I have heard this bolded statment above for quite some time and have even parroted it my self but can it verified? I have read the # was as much as 400 and as low as 50. I have wondered if we really know and in effect use the higher number in an effort to make it sound more problematic than it really was.

This web site… earlychristianwritings.com
gives a listing of about 220 writings of various categories. Is this a complete listing and would all of these have been considered by some to be inspired in the early church or is some on this list, given in categories, not necessarly considered by anyone but just listed as early writings?

Peace!!!

Is it possible these

 

[commenter]

Many of the early theologians wrote commentary on multiple books of the New Testament. I heard somewhere that 26 of the 27 books were quoted from in the first 300 years. (Excludes 3 John).

The Muratorian Canon which was discovered and believed to be from the 2nd Century lists 22/27 books leaving out: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also includes a NT book of the Wisdom of Solomon.

When Eusebius wrote the first Church History book in the 4th century he states that the 5 disputed books were: James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John.

Did any early theologians give quotes from a gnostic or spurious writing? I wonder if there is evidence that the knowledgeable Christian scholars of the day were confused by the Gnostics.

The Gnostic “knowledgeable Christian scholars of the day” didn’t identify themselves as heretics. Those particular theologians identified themselves as Christians. These knowledgable Christian scholars, as well as others identified as Christian that aren’t exactly Gnostic nor Catholic, quoted from various Scriptures, and “scriptures”, as well.

Other church historians, other canonical lists or fragments, other patterns of quoting, may point in different directions, different canons. (You chose raw data that supports one of the possible outcomes, the familiar 27). Many Christian scholars were sort of Gnostic, sort of other things, as seen in hindsight.

If you, in 2016, start with the Magisterium’s NT canon in your hand, you then select *certain *raw data that - maybe - led to their choices. (The usual criteria are shaky and subjective, could be made to fit other books, too.) To bring in such a short canon, some authority had to make a decision to exclude or discount most of the Christian raw data sources, most Christian communities, and most Christian scholars. You, in 2016, might argue the Gnostics, and others were not *real *Christians, but that is because you live in the world influenced by the Magisterium’s canon.

 

[HelenRose]

Nope!! Known but not well known,

Check out the Muratorian fragment

Oldest book listing we have in the early church and the list doesn’t line up with what we have today or what Pope Damasus decreed in 382 AD.

Around 300+ books vying for canonization in the early church. Some of which are still useful works for today, just not considered scripture.

This is why I say that all Christians, everywhere, are trusting in a human source outside the bible to tell them what is inspired.

Pax

You are right. It is a matter of whether a person believes that these men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that they were but I can understand why some people do not. In that case they will have to follow the writings of others. It really is as simple as that.

For me, these writings speak for themselves. They are the writings of intelligent men who wrote what they heard, saw and believed.

It is the same with the debates as to whether or not God exists. I believe that He does exist and the Bible is His gift to mankind. I can’t prove it but I know in my heart, soul and mind that He does. So I leave it up to atheists to get along in this world as best as they can.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have heard this bolded statment above for quite some time and have even parroted it my self but can it verified? I have read the # was as much as 400 and as low as 50. I have wondered if we really know and in effect use the higher number in an effort to make it sound more problematic than it really was.

This web site… earlychristianwritings.com
gives a listing of about 220 writings of various categories. Is this a complete listing and would all of these have been considered by some to be inspired in the early church or is some on this list, given in categories, not necessarly considered by anyone but just listed as early writings?

Peace!!!

Is it possible these

Thing is, I’m not sure all of the contested books are even in existence today. So I think it would be tough to pin down a exact number.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You are right. It is a matter of whether a person believes that these men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that they were but I can understand why some people do not. In that case they will have to follow the writings of others. It really is as simple as that.

For me, these writings speak for themselves. They are the writings of intelligent men who wrote what they heard, saw and believed.

It is the same with the debates as to whether or not God exists. I believe that He does exist and the Bible is His gift to mankind. I can’t prove it but I know in my heart, soul and mind that He does. So I leave it up to atheists to get along in this world as best as they can.

Yes, I think all the fulfilled prophecies by the Lord and the incredible typology between the Catholic Church teachings/New Testament and the Old Testament speaks volumes about the credibility of the Christian faith.

In regards to other faiths, it can be argued, for example, that the Book of Mormon and the Koran are just badly plagiarized bibles. Don’t mean to sound insulting to those faiths, but if you don’t believe it to be divinely inspired then there isn’t much else to think about their holy texts, other than the junior text likely copying from the senior.

Our bible is so unique with like 40 different authors, written over thousands of years all essentially agreeing with each other.

 

[HelenRose]

Yes, I think all the fulfilled prophecies by the Lord and the incredible typology between the Catholic Church teachings/New Testament and the Old Testament speaks volumes about the credibility of the Christian faith.

In regards to other faiths, it can be argued, for example, that the Book of Mormon and the Koran are just badly plagiarized bibles. Don’t mean to sound insulting to those faiths, but if you don’t believe it to be divinely inspired then there isn’t much else to think about their holy texts, other than the junior text likely copying from the senior.

Our bible is so unique with like 40 different authors, written over thousands of years all essentially agreeing with each other.

The more I study the Bible the more fascinating and coherent it becomes. But, it takes time and people have so little time to devote to the scriptures. We all tend to speak and react to one-liners and witty clever posts. I am guilty of this and try to over come it but I honestly don’t always know what I am talking about.

I take a great deal of comfort in Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She said, “I love all religions but I am in love with my own.” Strange as it may sound she gave me the reason to be in love with Catholicism while finding peace with the beliefs of others. I only pray that people, what ever belief they can fall in love with, will find the same peace that I found in Catholicism and in the Bible.

 

[Duane1966]

Did any early theologians give quotes from a gnostic or spurious writing? I wonder if there is evidence that the knowledgeable Christian scholars of the day were confused by the Gnostics.

Yes, Clement of Alexandria considered many pagan writings as scripture.

 

[benhur]

Was it already well known what was and wasn’t scripture before the council’s.
So that the Catholic church just compiled what everyone already knew was scripture and needed no guidance from God in doing so?

Hi ex,

Almost a straw man question, that is it must be answered in the negative. The words “just” and" everyone knew", and “no Godly guidance needed” are a bit forced .

I do find that some may say yes but out of a desire not to elevate a church magisterium (Catholic). Others cite no to indeed elevate that same magisterium.

I would say every step involving Writ calls for “inspiration” and guidance. That goes from the writing, to the receiving, to the understanding, to the preservation and copying and translating, and of course to the acceptance/discernment as Writ.

I would also say the OT gives us a good paradigm. Judaism never had to institutionally come together for that discernment/canonization before Christ. I would say Judaism was guided by God, and came to a discernment on the matter of what books were inspired , informally, which then became a "tradition’’.

I think the same happened in NT. Many books were accepted right away . A handful were accepted by some but not by everyone, at least it took some time.
A “tradition”, divinely guided yet informal tradition, becomes evident as time marched on.

It is said by some that Constantine ordered Eusebius to compile the NT, and he came up with the twenty seven books with some study and “surveying” the landscape (a generation or two before any council on the matter).

The fact is we are indebted to those who went before us and were guided with discernment on the matter, from the writers, to the church receivers, and bishops and theologians as well as councils etc.

I would also say we can also understand and see how the books received their claim . Our faith is rational , with the evidences, the same evidences our predecessors saw. We do not abdicate the responsibility and privilege of “seeing” what they saw. A Gift, beyond just an institution/magisterium.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The more I study the Bible the more fascinating and coherent it becomes. But, it takes time and people have so little time to devote to the scriptures. We all tend to speak and react to one-liners and witty clever posts. I am guilty of this and try to over come it but I honestly don’t always know what I am talking about.

I take a great deal of comfort in Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She said, “I love all religions but I am in love with my own.” Strange as it may sound she gave me the reason to be in love with Catholicism while finding peace with the beliefs of others. I only pray that people, what ever belief they can fall in love with, will find the same peace that I found in Catholicism and in the Bible.

That’s a excellent quote from Mother!

And I love the Churches’ very rational explanation for folks of other religions. It’s possible for them to be saved, too. Wasn’t like that in the fundamentalists churches, you had better share the gospel with them because if they didn’t hear and accept before they died, they went to hell. Never could quite buy into the idea of our loving God flinging people into hell at no real fault of their own.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Certain books of the Old Testament were certainly regarded as scripture and were treated as such, not just in the church fathers but within the New Testament. Most of the New Testament began to be treated as Scripture by the end of the second century leading up till the fourth century where a general canon was more less established. It is important to note that there has never been a universal canon of scripture, even before the schism.

 

[Kliska]

I think most books were accepted as Scripture right away. Paul’s letters clearly show that he was aware that he was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There were a few books in question in the early centuries.

In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites Luke 10:7 “The worker deserves his wages.” In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. So that is 1 gospel and the 13 letters of Paul accepted in the apostles’ generation.

Many of the early theologians wrote commentary on multiple books of the New Testament. I heard somewhere that 26 of the 27 books were quoted from in the first 300 years. (Excludes 3 John).

The Muratorian Canon which was discovered and believed to be from the 2nd Century lists 22/27 books leaving out: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also includes a NT book of the Wisdom of Solomon.

When Eusebius wrote the first Church History book in the 4th century he states that the 5 disputed books were: James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John.

Did any early theologians give quotes from a gnostic or spurious writing? I wonder if there is evidence that the knowledgeable Christian scholars of the day were confused by the Gnostics.

Also, the question is; could others go through a similar process and arrive at similar conclusions even today? I contend we could and we actually have. When a new “fad” talks about a “new” (many times not new at all, but rather “rediscovered”) document or manuscript and tries to put it on par with scripture, we return to analyzing the claims. As an example I’m sure we all remember is the fad of pushing “The Gospel of Thomas.”

 

[mattp0625]

The NT did not randomly evolve through majority rule.

While inspired when written, the criteria was later set to determine inspiration- e.g. It was written by an apostle of Christ, among other criteria.

As stated, there were plenty of epistles that, while useful for the church and revered by many in the early church, did not make the cut.

These includes the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Barnabas, as well as the Didache.

The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[38] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[39] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[33] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[40] Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[41]