Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[upciguy26]

In John Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctirne p.125 it states, *“The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books in all, though of varying importance. Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John’s death…” *

That would mean that more than 50% of the NT was not in circulation in the late second century.

All of the books existed within their respective communities and obviously when the BIshops met, they would of discussed and examined the parchments.

 

[mercygate]

All of the books existed within their respective communities and obviously when the BIshops met, they would of discussed and examined the parchments.

True. But they could not be understood nor universally accepted AS Scripture. You might as an individual, or as a community, “known” the Epistle to Philemon (choosing an example that scarcely rises in anybody’s estimation to the level of Romans) was “inspired and inerrant” but until your “knowledge” was ratified in council by the Holy Spirit for the universal Church you could not have placed it on the same level as the Pentateuch – which it now is.

One person the other day said it, either on this thread or elsewhere in response to a taunt about Catholics “adding” books to the Bible: “YES! The Church added books to the Bible. The Church added the New Testament!”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“The Church did not have Scripture for the first 300 years of existence.”

I have heard this arguement many times on this website. It is a very unbalanced and illinformed arguement. I am not saying this to argue for either side (Protestant or Catholic) right now, just to correct a misrepresentation (although this is often done by Catholics arguing for the necessary role of infallible tradition in the early Church).

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

1. Paul’s letters were immediately accepted as Scripture and passed into circulation very early. By the second century it was being passed on as a groups called the Pauline corpus. Many early fathers demonstate this by quoting from these documents (Clem quotes from Romans, 1 Cor. Gal, Eph, Col. 2 Thes at least; Polycarp Ignatius and Justin all quote from many of Paul’s letters; Ignatius and Justin do as well). And of course, it goes without saying that the Romans had Romans, Corinthians had Corinthians, Ephesians had Ephesians, etc . . .
   Even Peter, speaking to scattered bretheren, talks about the Pauline letters suggesting that his many readers from many different places may have had copies (2 Pet. 3:16).
2. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) were all accetped without question very early on by the Church. They were in immediate circulation. Many of the early writers quote from them with great authority showing that they were widely accepted and circulated. Again Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all quote from some, if not all the Gospel (including John) demonstrating that most of the Church had been exposed to the Gospels. Paul even quotes from Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim 5:18).
3. Acts was also understood to be inspired very early (at least by the begining of the second century. The Muratorian fragment includes Acts. Irenaus had a copy. There is no reason to assume that Acts was not accepted and circulated very early as was Luke’s gospel.
4. The Muratorian Canon refers to 90% of the New Testament as being accepted by 190.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 80% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church. Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them. In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong, uninformed, and misleading. The argument that infallible tradition is necessary for the establisment of the early church is “folk theology” and many people on this site are engaging in it. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

I am not saying that you are doing this willingly, but, please, study the issues first. Represent the truth correctly. Bad and misleading argumentation doesn’t get anyone very far.

I am certainly open to debate about this issue. I pray that you all are doing well.

Michael

Good post ​

The argument confuses

• the canonisation of all 27 NT books as a group, in the late 4th century
  with
• the use of them, in the various churches, before that time, before all 27 were recognised as Scripture.
  IOW, it commits a fallacy of distribution:
• “Fallacy of Distribution” - A fallacy of distribution is made when an arguer assumes that the properties of the whole apply to all the parts and vice versa. For example: “This orange is rotten, so it’s seeds must be no good.” This presumes that the rotten portions of the fruit have somehow affected the seeds. The reverse would be, “This orange’s seeds will never grow trees, so the orange must be no good.” This presumes that the seeds themselves indicate the properties of the fruit. No fallacy exists if a true correlation can be proven. For instance: “All apples with black holes in them are bad. This apple has a black hole in it. Therefore, this apple is bad,” would be an example of good logic, if all the premises can be shown as true.
• tribes.tribe.net/bellydancerswithbrains/thread/caa01613-31d4-4f4a-bfd5-5fe96a0c316f
  That Hebrews was not universally recognised as part of the Bible by 250 (say) does not mean that Acts & Matthew were not. Doubts about Revelation do not imply any uncertainty about Mark.

The Fathers of the first four centuries are among the witnesses to the NT text - they quote the various books as Scripture, so they can hardly have been ignorant of them. There is nothing out of the way in this: their knowledge of these books can be proved by two minutes with a Greek New Testament, because they are listed among the witnesses to the text. So are many lectionaries - so the whole idea that that “the Church had no Bible”, at all, is a complete myth. It’s as bad as anything in a Chick tract.

 

[upciguy26]

True. But they could not be understood nor universally accepted AS Scripture. You might as an individual, or as a community, “known” the Epistle to Philemon (choosing an example that scarcely rises in anybody’s estimation to the level of Romans) was “inspired and inerrant” but until your “knowledge” was ratified in council by the Holy Spirit for the universal Church you could not have placed it on the same level as the Pentateuch – which it now is.

One person the other day said it, either on this thread or elsewhere in response to a taunt about Catholics “adding” books to the Bible: “YES! The Church added books to the Bible. The Church added the New Testament!”

Most epistles were written by Paul or Peter or John. I’m sure the church considered what they had to say as apostolic. Its not like each book has unknown authors.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Was everyone agreed on who wrote Hebrews?

 

[upciguy26]

Was everyone agreed on who wrote Hebrews?

No, but the general agreement has been the apostle Paul. Some think it might have been Luke or one of those who were with Paul on his journeys.

It does however agree with the other epistles.

 

[PetersKeys]

“The Church did not have Scripture for the first 300 years of existence.”

I have heard this arguement many times on this website. It is a very unbalanced and illinformed arguement. I am not saying this to argue for either side (Protestant or Catholic) right now, just to correct a misrepresentation (although this is often done by Catholics arguing for the necessary role of infallible tradition in the early Church).

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

1. Paul’s letters were immediately accepted as Scripture and passed into circulation very early. By the second century it was being passed on as a groups called the Pauline corpus. Many early fathers demonstate this by quoting from these documents (Clem quotes from Romans, 1 Cor. Gal, Eph, Col. 2 Thes at least; Polycarp Ignatius and Justin all quote from many of Paul’s letters; Ignatius and Justin do as well). And of course, it goes without saying that the Romans had Romans, Corinthians had Corinthians, Ephesians had Ephesians, etc . . .
   Even Peter, speaking to scattered bretheren, talks about the Pauline letters suggesting that his many readers from many different places may have had copies (2 Pet. 3:16).
2. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) were all accetped without question very early on by the Church. They were in immediate circulation. Many of the early writers quote from them with great authority showing that they were widely accepted and circulated. Again Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all quote from some, if not all the Gospel (including John) demonstrating that most of the Church had been exposed to the Gospels. Paul even quotes from Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim 5:18).
3. Acts was also understood to be inspired very early (at least by the begining of the second century. The Muratorian fragment includes Acts. Irenaus had a copy. There is no reason to assume that Acts was not accepted and circulated very early as was Luke’s gospel.
4. The Muratorian Canon refers to 90% of the New Testament as being accepted by 190.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 80% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church. Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them. In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong, uninformed, and misleading. The argument that infallible tradition is necessary for the establisment of the early church is “folk theology” and many people on this site are engaging in it. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

I am not saying that you are doing this willingly, but, please, study the issues first. Represent the truth correctly. Bad and misleading argumentation doesn’t get anyone very far.

I am certainly open to debate about this issue. I pray that you all are doing well.

Michael

you also need to remember that bishops like polycarp and ignatius were big bishops who had access to those documents and were priviledged in that way. The commoner would not have that access say the bishops would since there were no copy machines back then and the documents were kept within archives in scattered churches throughout asia and rome.

also alot of the churches accepted canon that are not canon anymore, like the didache and the apocolypse of Peter, barnabas, etc. It was up to the church to weed out the documents that were not considered inspired scripture. If not for the church you would be calling things like the didache the word of God too. So yes the tradition of the church did define and set what the NT canon is, whether you believe it or not is up to you, but it still happened historically. The NT is essentially a catholic document and is ours, and personally in my opinion no one outside the church has any buisness in it like tertullian said.

 

[ERNIE_GALLANT]

Although IIPeters had yet to be put to print, Peter was telling the original Christians that everything that Paul ever said was correct, but it would be how some of them would interpret Paul to their own ruination and destruction… …Read the last chapter of IIPeter…ErnieG

 

[down_under]

Let me claify once again that the majority of the early church, as the argument was made above, and as most of you all have expressed agreement with, there is no validity in saying that people ONLY relied upon tradition. Tradition, at this point was a factor, but the evidence described above shows that it was not either the only factor, nor the most important factor.

As well, many of the traditions were based upon the written words of the apostles. To this degree they were infallible.

Some have said that the illiteracy of the early church has a bering on this situation. I fail to see any connection at all. It makes little difference whether or not someone could read. My children cannot read, but this does not mean that they have to rely upon tradition per se, they rely upon my words and my teachings. But my teachings are only true to the degree that they represent the words of God as expressed through the apostles as recorded in the New Testament. Therefore, since the NT Scriptures (at least 80% of them) were in circulation and widely accepted as inspired (agian, notice Peter’s words about the Pauline corpus), people tradition may have only been true to the degree that they adhered to the apostles original teachings as the have been recorded, the same as my teaching of my illiterate children.

Michael

okay you are loosing me. you just said that they did not need tradition or that it was not a primary need. you then go on to explain that your children cannot read, but they learn the apostolic teaching through you, clue that IS tradition. and yes it is only true teaching of the church so long as it follows the apostolic tradition. and no most churchs would have been lucky before 312 to have a single document never mind most of the documents of the nt.

 

[down_under]

No.

Yes

Frankly, while I enjoy reading the book of Rev, it is insignificant to understanding the essentials of the Christian faith. If it were never written, there would not be much that is lost by way of essential instruction. Most people today who accept the book of Revelation have never even read it (much less understand it). The same goes for 2 and 3 John. I am glad that they are included, but the church would not be in dire straights without them. So, this is probebly the reason why God did not lead the body of Christ to recognize them early on. No big deal.

Michael

you are MAD. your crazy. Half the mass is taken from the book of revelations. A lot of our traditions about heaven come from the book of revelations. That is why it is called revelations in plain english “unveiling”. to make just one point why do you think we put the bones and relics of martyers under alters. read the book of revelations and see where they are in heaven and you will understand. your logic is simply warped to fit your argument here. you are seeing what you want to see.

 

[ERNIE_GALLANT]

We should also remind ourselves that Christ mentioned several times in the Gospels and by His words before the gospels were printed that we should be aware not to be lead astray…Christ fully realized that some of us would get ourselves lead astray and from the very first century of the Church several groups were formed inside the Church that came up with weird ideas, such as you can lose your salvation even after you get to Heaven… These groups were exposed by the Church and if they didn’t accept corrections were excommunicated…So, the Church did not leave us “high & dry” without the written word…ErnieG

 

[peary]

“The Church did not have Scripture for the first 300 years of existence.”

I have heard this arguement many times on this website. It is a very unbalanced and illinformed arguement. I am not saying this to argue for either side (Protestant or Catholic) right now, just to correct a misrepresentation (although this is often done by Catholics arguing for the necessary role of infallible tradition in the early Church).

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

1. Paul’s letters were immediately accepted as Scripture and passed into circulation very early. By the second century it was being passed on as a groups called the Pauline corpus. Many early fathers demonstate this by quoting from these documents (Clem quotes from Romans, 1 Cor. Gal, Eph, Col. 2 Thes at least; Polycarp Ignatius and Justin all quote from many of Paul’s letters; Ignatius and Justin do as well). And of course, it goes without saying that the Romans had Romans, Corinthians had Corinthians, Ephesians had Ephesians, etc . . .
   Even Peter, speaking to scattered bretheren, talks about the Pauline letters suggesting that his many readers from many different places may have had copies (2 Pet. 3:16).
2. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) were all accetped without question very early on by the Church. They were in immediate circulation. Many of the early writers quote from them with great authority showing that they were widely accepted and circulated. Again Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all quote from some, if not all the Gospel (including John) demonstrating that most of the Church had been exposed to the Gospels. Paul even quotes from Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim 5:18).
3. Acts was also understood to be inspired very early (at least by the begining of the second century. The Muratorian fragment includes Acts. Irenaus had a copy. There is no reason to assume that Acts was not accepted and circulated very early as was Luke’s gospel.
4. The Muratorian Canon refers to 90% of the New Testament as being accepted by 190.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 80% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church. Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them. In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong, uninformed, and misleading. The argument that infallible tradition is necessary for the establisment of the early church is “folk theology” and many people on this site are engaging in it. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

I am not saying that you are doing this willingly, but, please, study the issues first. Represent the truth correctly. Bad and misleading argumentation doesn’t get anyone very far.

I am certainly open to debate about this issue. I pray that you all are doing well.

Michael

Since the vast majority of early Christians within the first 100 years were Jewish, OF COURSE they had Scripture: the Old Testament. The Church was never without Scripture, whether OT or, later, NT.

 

[packermann]

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

I think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position. I never heard any Catholic say that the early Church was “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament. Of course the early church used the NT documents since its inception. That is not the issue.

Part of the issue is as you yourself stated it, the church had MOST of the NT. So how do you justify using the parts in NT that the church since its inception depated them being part of scripture? But not all. And each church has access to difterent NT documents. Not only that, but some churches used other documents as scripture that were not part of the New Testament. Some were Gnostic, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Gospel of Thomas. There were actual 19 different gospels floating around during those first three centuries. Some other Non-NT documents were orthodox, like Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, which was widely read as part of of the liturgy as were the NT documents.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 80% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church.

80% is not enough, not unless you are advocating the publishing of a Bible that only has that 80%. You still have to justify that 20I.

What of the Book of Hebrews? I went to a Protestant Evanelical seminary. Most evangelical Protestant now agree that it was probably not written by Paul. Some say it was written by Apolos. Some Prysilla. Others say that no one can know for sure. So if we do not even know who wrote Hebrews, how can we know that this person was inspired by God to write scripture?

Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them. In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.

Probably??? More than likely??? This sounds more like your opinion rather than fact.

I think you are overlooking the fact the printing press was not yet created. Copies could only be handwritten, which took a long time to do. So I doubt that most of the church probably had most of the NT.

But even if that is the case, you yourself acknowledge that they only had the ESSENTIALS. So unless you are willing to tear out portions of the NT, that were not part those essentials, then you still have a preoblem.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong, uninformed, and misleading. The argument that infallible tradition is necessary for the establisment of the early church is “folk theology” and many people on this site are engaging in it. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

You argue against infallible tradition, but then your argument seems to based on infallible tradition. You are just saying that this tradition was very, very early - since it was the church’s inception. But no matter whether it is very early or in the fourth century, you are still appealing to tradition, which contradicts your sola scriptura position which I assume you believe.

According to sola scriptura, no doctrine should be believed unless it is in the Bible (please correct if I am wrong). So according to sola scriptura, the only reason a particular book in the NT should be regarded as the written Word of God is if the Bible itself says that that book is the inspired Word of God. But unfortunately, that is not the case. Jesus never sat down with the apostles and others; and personally authorized each to contribute to the NT! So it matters little how early the church used these documents as scripture. If you reject tradition, then you must be consistent and reject very early tradition.

Where in the Bible does it say Hebrew was the written Word of God? Where in the Bible does it say that the Gospel of Mark was the Word of God. To argue that we know that they are the Word of God because the early church used them is to appeal to tradition.

 

[mercygate]

you are MAD. your crazy. Half the mass is taken from the book of revelations. A lot of our traditions about heaven come from the book of revelations. That is why it is called revelations in plain english “unveiling”. to make just one point why do you think we put the bones and relics of martyers under alters. read the book of revelations and see where they are in heaven and you will understand. your logic is simply warped to fit your argument here. you are seeing what you want to see.

REVELATION. It’s Revelation – without an “s” on the end of the word. Sorry to be a crank on this but for pete’s sake it’s the title of a book in the BIBLE.

Why not just revert to the Greek title and call it The Apocalypse?

 

[down_under]

REVELATION. It’s Revelation – without an “s” on the end of the word. Sorry to be a crank on this but for pete’s sake it’s the title of a book in the BIBLE.

Why not just revert to the Greek title and call it The Apocalypse?

tap tap tap. again we dance a jig so we don’t have to answer the argument. try answering any of the good arguments that were made instead of just belittling the s. unless you have no comment which is understandable because you are wrong.

 

[peary]

tap tap tap. again we dance a jig so we don’t have to answer the argument. try answering any of the good arguments that were made instead of just belittling the s. unless you have no comment which is understandable because you are wrong.

OK Smartypants - and what exactly WAS the question again?

 

[down_under]

OK Smartypants - and what exactly WAS the question again?

As I recall you said the book of revelations was insignificant and I pointed out that it was absolutely essential to our understanding of heaven. and rather then continuing to make an intelligent argument defending your position, you simply say silly little statements that have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. I expected some intelligent defense of your position. instead you have abandoned your apparently indefensible position. Do you not have something to say about it.

 

[peary]

As I recall you said the book of revelations was insignificant and I pointed out that it was absolutely essential to our understanding of heaven. and rather then continuing to make an intelligent argument defending your position, you simply say silly little statements that have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. I expected some intelligent defense of your position. instead you have abandoned your apparently indefensible position. Do you not have something to say about it.

**You must have me mixed up with some other poster. I haven’t said anything about the book of Revelation. There was so much going on between your postings and other postings that I didn’t even know what the question was any longer as I was following. Why don’t you just beat me? Sheesh… **