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

[rcwitness]

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).

Where have you discovered this? Is there any evidence he had the correct 27?

Athanasius definitely had the correct 27 in 367. I believe Pope St Damasus brought him back to his office, from the 5th exile, in 366. If the Damascene list from 382 is genuine, I believe it’s very possible he consulted with St Athanasius in these days.

 

[benhur]

Greetings.

Not sure what denomination you are, but if certain members went off the deep end and started teaching weird doctrines, you and your church leaders would probably label those people as heretics and rightly expel them from the congregation unless they cease and desisted.

And then said heretics might ultimately label you guys as “sectarians”.

See how that works? The Catholic church, or any Church or institution, should never make any apologies for defending Truth, even if it causes separation.

No qualms whatsoever with labeling the OT as a Jewish book, humanely speaking. Technically it is and I don’t even like the "Old “Testament” label for that because they find it insulting. I wish it were called “previous revelation” or something to that effect.

Hi La,

OK.Understnd.

Just have a different paradigm when said weird doctrines , and said heretics are still “brothers”.

Wisdom is needed in such cases when defending the “Truth”. As an example, that God gave us the bible is a bigger truth than the truth of the name of the church that received it.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Where have you discovered this? Is there any evidence he had the correct 27?

Athanasius definitely had the correct 27 in 367. I believe Pope St Damasus brought him back to his office, from the 5th exile, in 366. If the Damascene list from 382 is genuine, I believe it’s very possible he consulted with St Athanasius in these days.

doen’t the vaticAN HAVE A 4TH CENTURY BIBLE ? sOME THINK THIS MAY BE ONE OF THE FIFTY MADE BY EUSEBIUS ?

 

[rcwitness]

doen’t the vaticAN HAVE A 4TH CENTURY BIBLE ? sOME THINK THIS MAY BE ONE OF THE FIFTY MADE BY EUSEBIUS ?

Codex_Vaticanus? It is that old! And possibly contained the entire NT. It now is missing 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.

It’s possible, but is there much knowledge about its origin?

 

[po18guy]

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?

Paul’s letters. There was one copy, sent from here to there. All Christians could not possibly have known of them at the time. It took at a minimum months, years, even decades for the common Christian writings to be recognized as valuable, then hand copied and carried from place to place - and it would be additional decades, perhaps even centuries before their universal value was tested and known. What, for example, would have been the immediate interest or applicability of Paul’s personal letter to Philemon to a Christian in far off Alexandria, Egypt?

This shows the absolute foundation of oral Apostolic preaching which Christ empowered the Apostles with and commanded them forth. The collection of scriptures took an amazing amount of time (in our view) to be copied, circulated, tested and collected. Not one of them claims “this letter is inspired by God” That, like circumcision, had to be decided by a council.

The Lord saw that these various letters (as well as the ancient Hebrew and pre-Hebrew) writings) were preserved so that the Church could test them far in the future for their inspiration and universal value. There are most certainly letters that have not survived, and there is reason for that, as well.

 

[commenter]

Wisdom is needed in such cases when defending the “Truth”. As an example, that God gave us the bible is a bigger truth than the truth of the name of the church that received it.

Yes, that God gave us the Bible is certainly bigger than all the churches.

But who received the Bible?
I would say the Bible was “received” by individuals - individuals are the ones who read, and hear it. Individuals are the ones who (hopefully) go to Heaven. Actually the recipients of the Bible include not just individual Christians like you and me, but other individuals. Some non Christian readers become Christians as a result of reading the Bible, and many other individuals are changed in some way.

I would regard the Magisterium’s role as publicly identifying the NT canon; in the past, and present.

 

[benhur]

Codex_Vaticanus? It is that old! And possibly contained the entire NT. It now is missing 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.

It’s possible, but is there much knowledge about its origin?

not sure. i thought the eusebius bibles had the 27.

 

[commenter]

Several posts cite ancient codices, or collections of books that are similar to our familiar 27, as proof that, “see, we knew we had the right canon all along”; as if the 27 book canon was inevitable, the only possible outcome, just needed maybe a Notary Public to certify it.

Bart Ehrman is a scholar I hesitate to recommend. He was raised Evangelical, now is pretty close to Agnostic, I believe. He has written several books about early Christianity, essentially showing there were other old collections, scriptures, other old “Christianities” or traditions,
that were driven out or suppressed. So finding an old codex that is similar to “our” 27 does not mean much (to him) because history is written by the winners. The losers’ codices got burned or hidden away for safety.

I hate to reference him, but he and likeminded people have influence because of the media.
In other words, some powerful agency (I would say good guys, he might say bad guys) decided the canon. But there was a religious, powerful very early agency.

I wish he would return to Christian faith.

 

[mattp0625]

Pope Damascus to Synod at Hippo to Jerome.
Result? Decisions on the settlement of canon and the Latin Vulgate.

As we know, several epistles which were previously utilized did not make the cut.

It was not the result of majority rule or random evolution.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

 

[mattp0625]

Also note that from the first century through the fourth century and onward, the history of the church is marked by bishops aka Catholic

 

[rcwitness]

not sure. i thought the eusebius bibles had the 27.

I think it’s a good question ben. I will be looking into it myself. I’m not sure we know what we’re contained in those Bibles… I’d like to read Eusibius’ “Ecclesiastical History”, where I believe he provided a list which he was convinced was genuine. How he concluded this is also very significant.

The two oldest codexes we have are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, if I’m not mistaken. Both, or one or the other could possibly be from Eusibius. Or neither too. Vaticanus may have been a complete correct NT, but Sinaiticus definitely had extra books such as the Shepherd and Barnabas.

I think these bibles are very relevant to the thread! I think they are very cool!

 

[susanlo]

I think it’s a good question ben. I will be looking into it myself. I’m not sure we know what we’re contained in those Bibles… I’d like to read Eusibius’ “Ecclesiastical History”, where I believe he provided a list which he was convinced was genuine. How he concluded this is also very significant.

Here are some links to The Church History by Eusebius:
This is a translation by Philip Schaff: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.i.html
This is the page where he writes about the books: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html
This is supposed to be a more modern translation, but you can’t read the whole book. Page 115 has the part about the accepted, disputed and rejected books: books.google.com/books?id=KgpGs1wdle4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Eusebius+(of+Caesarea,+Bishop+of+Caesarea)%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPi62hwqPNAhWHwj4KHf3sDSIQ6wEIKjAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don’t see where he goes into detail about who accepts and rejects the various books and why. But it is an interesting book in general to see what early 4th century Christianity was like through his eyes.

 

[rcwitness]

Here are some links to The Church History by Eusebius:
This is a translation by Philip Schaff: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.i.html
This is the page where he writes about the books: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html

Excellent sunanlo! This seems to be a list of the correct NT canon much earlier than St Athanasius! Thanks!

I don’t see where he goes into detail about who accepts and rejects the various books and why. But it is an interesting book in general to see what early 4th century Christianity was like through his eyes.

I will post it here, to highlight some things I found interesting:

Chapter XXV.—The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels1-4; following them the Acts of the Apostles5.
2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul18; next in order the extant former epistle of John19, and likewise the epistle of Peter20, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John21, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.
3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James22 and that of Jude23, also the second epistle of Peter24, and those that are called the second and third of John26, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of JohnThis must be separate from the Sacred book, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews27, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers—we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.

 

[RevDon]

We make a mistake if we envision early Christianity as uniform in theology. Writings were produced to respond to the needs of greatly differing communities of people who, for the most part, shared only a common devotion to a radical love of Jesus. The idea of an approved canon would have seemed absurd in the early years of Christianity. Likewise, though there appears to have been something of a network connecting local communities, most of them possessed far less than the entire canon, and would have been unaware of existence of the wide variety of writings produced by followers of Jesus. The differing challenges faced by communities in different parts of the Roman Empire, as well as differing ways of engaging in discourse on spiritual matters gave rise to many different presentations of the meaning of Christian discipleship. It is only when Constantine sought uniformity that the issue of canon became important.

 

[rcwitness]

We make a mistake if we envision early Christianity as uniform in theology. Writings were produced to respond to the needs of greatly differing communities of people who, for the most part, shared only a common devotion to a radical love of Jesus. The idea of an approved canon would have seemed absurd in the early years of Christianity. Likewise, though there appears to have been something of a network connecting local communities, most of them possessed far less than the entire canon, and would have been unaware of existence of the wide variety of writings produced by followers of Jesus. The differing challenges faced by communities in different parts of the Roman Empire, as well as differing ways of engaging in discourse on spiritual matters gave rise to many different presentations of the meaning of Christian discipleship. It is only when Constantine sought uniformity that the issue of canon became important.

Thanks. I believe Constantine’s conversion was very significant also. It brought lots of issues into the open. Kinda like the internet. It exposed theology into the public and state. It had pros and cons.

Christianity did, does and always will have uniform theology, while at the same time Christianity did, does and always will have divided theology.

It was important to the leadership of the Church after the persecution was lifted to combat many heresies. This took up a great portion of the Churches development.

What naturally arose out of this, was the blossoming of the papacy. When the Scriptures were elevated to their proper place (one Body of equally inspired writings), it was there that Peter’s office was a constant testimony and… well “rock”.

And so the issues that were constantly tearing down unity of mind, and judgment did not cease to flood in, it became more significant to draw upon the office which Christ established.

And this office also had its role in providing a universal judgment regarding the body of Sacred Scripture. The way that judgment manifested was not an isolated “grab out of the hat” trick, but relied on testimony from the “ecclesiastical succesors” who were handed down this Tradition as wise and faithful stewards of their offices. And through a council of these men, the Bishop of Rome was necessary in Confirming which canon is true. Because, after all, disputes must come to an end.

 

[commenter]

We make a mistake if we envision early Christianity as uniform in theology. Writings were produced to respond to the needs of greatly differing communities of people who, for the most part, shared only a common devotion to a radical love of Jesus.

Well, OK. To me it looks, in reading, as if there were a few different, competing Christianities, within each of which there was some degree of uniformity, or “orthodoxy”. Among one group - call them the Catholics - there definitely was a perceived need for orthodoxy, and recognition that heresy was bad. Among another group - the gnostics - syncretism was part of their religion. It absorbed.

The idea of an approved canon would have seemed absurd in the early years of Christianity. Likewise, though there appears to have been something of a network connecting local communities, most of them possessed far less than the entire canon, and would have been unaware of existence of the wide variety of writings produced by followers of Jesus. The differing challenges faced by communities in different parts of the Roman Empire, as well as differing ways of engaging in discourse on spiritual matters gave rise to many different presentations of the meaning of Christian discipleship. It is only when Constantine sought uniformity that the issue of canon became important.

Constantine’s near successors varied a lot from him, and each other, about religion, and in later times the empire was breaking down anyway. So while Constantine’s (name removed by moderator)ut can’t be ignored on the canon, it does not explain why the canon’s near unanimity endured, and geographically spread even to the New World, while so much of his other religious measures were repealed or dissipated under Arian, Pagan, and weak successors. So there is a lot more going on (besides Constantine, besides the Roman Empire) with the NT canon before, during and after Constantine. The canon is still mostly adhered to today, with most of Constantine’s legislation and rulings now abolished, only of historical interest.

 

[Pier]

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 not a scholar, but apparently there were other letters/writings that were NOT inspired. And Jesus definitely authorized the Church HE built to speak/bind/loose/etc. on His behalf, which of course it has done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit since the first Pentecost.

Ergo the complete holy Christian Bible was compiled by God the Holy Spirit, through the Church built by God the Son (Jesus). Here’s a good book on the subject, written by a former Protestant minister, Henry Graham, called “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church”.

amazon.com/dp/1888992042/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk

Hope that’s helpful, Excaliber, and God bless. †

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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 infant Apostolic Church possessed, copied and circulated the apostolic Letters as divinely inspired.

After the death of the last direct apostle to Jesus Christ (John), divine revelation ceased.

Now Sacred Tradition (the liturgical Mass) which encompassed the apostolic writing’s in the liturgy of the Word, practiced by the bishops who succeeded the apostles, when the apostolic Church suffers persecution and goes underground for the next 400 years.

Upon the persecution laws being lifted from the Catholic Church, She found that heretical and forged apostolic letters were being used within the diverse linguistic Liturgies.

The Church counseled and used a CANNON = (measuring standard), to prove which books were inspired of God and which ones were not. One of the measuring standards or cannon had to prove their books were used in their liturgies since apostolic times, authorized as authentic by an apostolic successor.

In short the Catholic church canonized the books of the bible for her apostolic Liturgy.

We have to take into consideration that most people were illiterate for many centuries during and after the biblical age. The apostolic faith was handed down by Oral Sacred Tradition with the apostolic Letters being read to the faithful, just as it is done today in the Catholic Liturgical Mass unchanged.

To answer your OP; Yes those whom Jesus placed in authority over His Church and their apostolic successors as Bishops and Martyrs, knew the letters were divinely inspired and rejected those that tried to compete with the apostolic letters, but the populace probably did not, because they could not read. Yet, the latter received their apostolic faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

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?

If by “the councils” you mean the local councils in the late fourth century that made decisions about the canon, then yes, most of the content of Scripture was settled by then. However, there were some questions about certain books.

But the entire process was guided by the Holy Spirit, not just those few councils in the late fourth century.

Edwin