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

[Exporter]

michaelP,

You wrote," 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."

michaelP, why do you think most people agree with what is written in red? It is because we Catholics have a Magesterium to sift throught all the tough questions. They know much better than you.

For the Blue part, That is your statement. You were wrong. The goal is the Truth. You don’t have the truth. Are you a Protestant of some sort?

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I agree that they did not have a document called the “New Testament” but this is not part of my argument and misleading as to what I am saying. They had 80% of the letters that make up our current NT. That is quite a bit. The fact that they had the Gospels, Pauline corpus, and Acts tells us that they were very concerned and dilegent to get these letters (which both Peter and Paul affirm as inspired) in circulation.

Let me put it this way – they had magnets, too (the name comes from the city of Magnesia, where naturally-occurring megnetic ores were found.)

But it would be more than a thousand years before they had the compass.

To have magnets is one thing, to use them to find direction is another.

Similarly, to have – among the mass of other Christian writings – the documents that make up the New Testament is one thing. To have the concept that there IS a New Testament, and to have an official canon is something entirely different.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Only the New Testament in the since that you have defined it. This is not the essence of it, nor does it gain authority only when your three element have come together. It is a nice way to break the issues down, but in no way deals with what I originally placed in the post.

Most of the early Chuch has 80% of the New Testament and lived by their dictates as inspired. They were not waiting for these three elements to combine, they were living according to the teaching of the Apostles as they recorded them. The same thing that we do since the Church “officially” recognized (Protestants)/determined (Catholics) the NT. What I am saying, is that this make very little difference in thought or practice.

Michael

How can you have 80% of that which does not exist?

In actuality, if you go by the standard you set, they probably had 1,000% – since they had far more writings than appear in the New Testament today.

Nor did they have the concept of the New Testament that we have today – the idea that the Christian writings are on an equal footing with Genesis, for example.

Early Christians may or may not have had access to any given part of today’s New Testament. They also had access to many OTHER sacred writings. And it was a long time before any Christian writings were put on the same footing as the Old Testament.

It’s like saying that they could make iron and there was coal in the ground, so they had a railroad train!!

 

[michaelp]

Michael: Perhaps it is not a big deal to you, but many Protestants would be shocked to learn that not all Christian churches agree on the Canon of Scripture…there are even some execptions regarding the New Testament. (As I mentioned earlier, I have heard that some Syriac communities reject Revelation, and that Ethiopia considers Clement canon). Does this bother you? Do you think it is important that all Christians have the same canon?

I do think that the having the right books is very important. I know a girl who is convinced that Enoch should be part of the canon. I will debate her on the issue, but in the end, I don’t think that she is missing or adding to any essential doctrine. I would have much more problems with people if they were to leave out the Gospels (or mutilate them as Marcion did), the Pauline epistles (with the exception of Philemon), Acts, or few others. I don’t run accross many people who would do this, but in theory, I would not get TOO bent out of shape over some. I would also have big problems if people added to the books that were not recognized early on as inspired. My basic philosophy is that God is sovereign and He is able to control this situation by leading His people to the right books. I don’t think that anyone could claim today that say the Gospel of Thomas is inspired (as the Jesus Seminar has proposed).

Part of my point before, however, was that you have no way of knowing that the Catholic NT Canon, which you use, is completely correct. There are bound to be various doctrines in certain Protestant churches that are primarily based upon disputed books of the NT.

I have no way of knowing “infallibly.” With this I have to be comfortable. I have no way of infallibly knowing that the sun is going to rise tomorrow either, but I have a moral certianty that it will. I have simular certianty concerning the books of the Bible. I think that I am not only justified in believing in these books, but that I am morally obligated to do so because of the weight of evidence.

By the way, can anyone verify whether or not the Ethiopian Church does indeed venerate Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians as canon?

I can’t. Good question.

 

[michaelp]

I suppose that they just bopped down to the nearest Kinko’s and had a bunch of copies run off. You make it sound like they had a ton of copies and that communication was as instant as it is today. That just wasn’t the case. Travel was slow…very slow compared to today, so just how can anyone claim that there was consensus about the canon in Paul’s day or that the NT was available to the populace.

Again, I was not saying that everyone had a copy of the NT. I was just saying that the evidence shows that the majority of the early church had ACCESS to this material. Expecially the bishops of the churches in each major area. They cerianly taught from them.

Naturally they did have some access to the Alexandrian OT (since it was in Greek), but again, there was no fast & convenient copying. So regardless of whatever sources you have studied…the simple common sense of history proves it doubtful at best and ludicrous lies at worst. I’m unsure which. I don’t see how in the world you can claim it is “absolutely wrong” w/a clear conscience when all these practical considerations make your case less than certain off the top.

I really think that you are misunderstanding. Many people on this site make it sound as if the early church did not have the NT AT ALL until the third or fourth century. This is just not true as I have shown.

We don’t even wanna get into the scriptural basis for the fact that there was oral tradition handed down by the apostles. (See John 21:25 & Acts 20:35) Or the fact that even the apostle Jude quoted from Jewish traditional writings in his epistle that is defined canon.
Also, why would St.Paul tell the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions

… and to avoid anyone who rejects those traditions(2 Thess 2:15 & 3:6)
I don’t either since that is not my intentions. I certianly believed that there was tradition availible at this point. But there was tradition AND nearly 80% of the NT availible.

“Folk theology” my foot…
I just don’t see your case my friend.

:bible1: :banghead:
Come on, it is not that bad is it?

BTW: Good to hear from you!

 

[michaelp]

Hey Joe,

You said “In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.”

This is not correct as the Gospel’s source is not Scripture. The Gospel, the oral Word of God, was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the apostles who then followed Jesus’ command to preach this Gospel.

This is a different debate. Though connected, I would just like to stick with the subject. I believe the Gospel is contained completely in God’s word, you believe that it is contained in God’s word and tradition. Fine. I agree to disagree.

No one in 2,000 years has learned the full Gospel by reading Scripture alone as it does not contain all the teachings contained in oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition). It contains the written Word which is primarily salvation history and can also be used to illumine the teachings in the oral Word.
Joe

Again, Joe, these are assumptions from your system that do not have to necessarily be affected by what I am saying. I, myself, remain unconvinced of the system of apostolic succession, but my arguements here do not necessarily prove anything one way or the other.

Thanks for your time and comments. They are much appreciated.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Hi Michael! Thanks for starting this thread - it seems like a great one with lots of opportunity to learn. I have a question regarding the bolded statement above. In addition to having 80% of the New Testament (as it eventually came to be defined by the Catholic Church), how much other stuff was out their unable to be recognized as Scripture or not? Was there more uninspired writings claiming to be inspired than there was actual Scripture? I mean the NT is about 400 pages total. Say about 300 pages were “well known” and not in dispute. How much “other” stuff was in contention? 1000 pages? 10,000? Does anybody really know?

thanks-

Phil

Hey Phil, great to hear from you also.

When you look at the big picture, there really were not that many other writing in dispute. Sure various church father would have at least the 80% of the NT and may mention one other book (Say the Shepherd). Another Church father would have the same 80% and mention another book (say the Didache). The common denomenator that is significant is the 80% that they did have. It goes to show that while there were some books out there that were in question, there was never any question about the inspiration of most of the NT.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

You wrote," 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."

michaelP, why do you think most people agree with what is written in red? It is because we Catholics have a Magesterium to sift throught all the tough questions. They know much better than you.

Wow! That sounds pretty harsh. Maybe I was in a bad mood earlier. I am sorry that I put this so bluntly. I think that I meant to say, in context with using the argument that the early Church was without the NT for the first 400 years is “folk theology.” Folk theology sound and is somewhat perjoritive. But at the same time, I also have much folk theology of my own.

I am not sure what you were asking, but I am sorry if this was overly offensive. I did not mean for it to be.

For the Blue part,

That is your statement. You were wrong. The goal is the Truth. You don’t have the truth. Are you a Protestant of some sort?

Anyone who uses this argument to prove that infallible tradition was absolutely necessary since the early church did not have the NT is wrong. That is what I was saying.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Similarly, to have – among the mass of other Christian writings – the documents that make up the New Testament is one thing. To have the concept that there IS a New Testament, and to have an official canon is something entirely different.

It is not that they just had these document, they believed them to be inspired. Even Peter show how by the 60s they believed the Pauline corpus to be inspired. Paul also demonstates in his letters that he believed Luke to be inspired. The early Church believed and submitted their lives to the teachings of God as expressed through them.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

How can you have 80% of that which does not exist?

What did not exist? I am not arguing that they had to have these books placed in some theoretical “canon” before they can be believed. Are you? Is that how you see them quoting the Gospels? Is that how Peter viewed Paul’s letters?

In actuality, if you go by the standard you set, they probably had 1,000% – since they had far more writings than appear in the New Testament today.

Yes, and they had letters to uncle sam and aunt susie. Most of the early Church agreed upon the Gospels, Pauline corpus, and Acts. There were a FEW other books that SOME held to be inspired. So what? They still had 80% of the NT as we have it today and they believed it to be inspired. That is my point.

Nor did they have the concept of the New Testament that we have today – the idea that the Christian writings are on an equal footing with Genesis, for example.

They had the concept of inspiration. They did not need any concept of “canon” to believe them to be inspired.

Early Christians may or may not have had access to any given part of today’s New Testament. They also had access to many OTHER sacred writings. And it was a long time before any Christian writings were put on the same footing as the Old Testament.

This is my arguement that the virtually all the early Church DID have access to most of the NT. If you disagree, you are free to do so, but you need to give evidence otherwise.

It’s like saying that they could make iron and there was coal in the ground, so they had a railroad train!!

No, inspiration is the important thing. Not some concept called “canonization.” We use that word simply to describe a collection of inspired books. The word or the concept itself add nothing to the authority of the writing. It sure didn’t to any of the early Church fathers as they quoted them as authoritative. Peter was not waiting for the concept of “canon” to come around before he said that Paul’s letters were inspired.

Thanks again for your comments.

Michael

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Michaelp,

Did the early Church infalliably define the New testament, as we know it today.

Now, if we accept that they did, who can or who has,infalliably given us the correct interpretation of those words.

If you do not believe we have been given infalliable interpretation of such scriptures then tell me the basis for your own personal doctrine. That is, I want to know if you believe your interpretation is infalliable, reason being is that if it is not, then please tell me why you spread your Gospel message, when you have no idea whether it is even remotely correct.

In Christ

Tim

 

[michaelp]

Tim Hayes:

Michaelp,

Did the early Church infalliably define the New testament, as we know it today.

No, it does not need to be. The weight of evidence compels me to believe. Do you have to have something infallibly stated before you are compelled to believe? What if I told you the sun was going to rise tomorrow. Is that infallible? How much do you believe it? Are you going to act on it? Should you act on it?

If you do not believe we have been given infalliable interpretation of such scriptures then tell me the basis for your own personal doctrine. That is, I want to know if you believe your interpretation is infalliable, reason being is that if it is not, then please tell me why you spread your Gospel message, when you have no idea whether it is even remotely correct.

Again, I don’t have to have infallible interpretation. You go with the weight of evidences. You are setting yourself up with the criteria of “infallibility” that you do not live up to. You make decisions everyday based upon the weight of evidences. Some decisions you are absolutely certian about, although not “infallibly” certian, because the evidence demands it. This is called moral certianty. It is all that we need. We have this to varying degrees in the interpretation of Scripture. Some things are very clear, some things arn’t.

You have to think of it this way. You are not “infallibly certian” of ANYTHING in this life except with issues of mathmatics and analytical statements. You are not “infallibly certain” that your belief about the infallibly of the Catholic church is correct are you? Of course not. How could you be? It is impossible. In the end, you either go with the evidence or, as most people, a gut feeling.

Therefore, you are fallibly certian that the church is infallible about an infallible book. What is the difference in this and me saying that I am fallibly certian about a infallible text? ULtimately, there is not any difference. You and I are in the same boat my friend. The only thing that makes one person better off than another is the weight of evidence.

In the case of this thread, the weight of evidence says that the early chuch had access to 80% of the Scriptures.

Thanks for the discussion.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Again, I was not saying that everyone had a copy of the NT. I was just saying that the evidence shows that the majority of the early church had ACCESS to this material. Expecially the bishops of the churches in each major area. They cerianly taught from them.

No one had access to the New Testament – there was no New Testament. Early churches had access to a LOT of material – there are some forty known “gospels” and a slew of apocalypses, apocrophons, acts and so on.

But without a concept of a Christian Bible that was co-equal with the Old Testament, and without the formal act of defining the Canon, there was no New Testament.

The Church relied on both oral and written tradition, and the idea that the Gospel of Luke was Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas or of Mary was not was slow to emerge.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

No one had access to the New Testament – there was no New Testament. Early churches had access to a LOT of material – there are some forty known “gospels” and a slew of apocalypses, apocrophons, acts and so on.

But without a concept of a Christian Bible that was co-equal with the Old Testament, and without the formal act of defining the Canon, there was no New Testament.

The Church relied on both oral and written tradition, and the idea that the Gospel of Luke was Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas or of Mary was not was slow to emerge.

Got it! There was no concept of a grouping of books called the “New Testament.” I am not arguing this. There is no reason to. We don’t really need to get that technical do we?

Vern, let me ask you a question. Did Peter believe that Paul’s letters were inspired and part of Scripture?

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Got it! There was no concept of a grouping of books called the “New Testament.” I am not arguing this. There is no reason to. We don’t really need to get that technical do we?

It is far more than a mere technicality. Given the profusion of gospels, acts, and so on that were in existance in the early days, one cannot say there was a New Testament until there was a “grouping of books.”

michaelp:

Vern, let me ask you a question. Did Peter believe that Paul’s letters were inspired and part of Scripture

Begging the question – the idea in ONE document that some documents were scripture doesn’t make a New Testament.

If you rely on the Epistles of Peter to validate the Epistles of Paul, where do you find an epistle to validate Peter? And where do you find an epistle to validate THAT epistle?

The concept of the New Testament emerged only slowly, and the development of the Canon was an essential final act. Until then, there was a plethora of possible “scripture.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Was there more uninspired writings claiming to be inspired than there was actual Scripture?

I’d have to say “YES.” In fact, Marcion dropped all the OT (Like Luther would later do for parts of both the OT and NT), and omitted some NT writings deemed sacred by the churches, while modifying some Gospels to suit his own theology. So, what “Gospel according to Matthew” was the correct one?

I have the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of John, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Andrew, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Thomas, and many other writings on my shelf that seem to be biblical, but ultimately were rejected by the authentic authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

What did not exist? I am not arguing that they had to have these books placed in some theoretical “canon” before they can be believed. Are you? Is that how you see them quoting the Gospels? Is that how Peter viewed Paul’s letters?

You seem to be claiming that just anyone could tell inspired scripture from forgeries.

Because after all, there were more forged and “edited” documents than there were genuine, inspired documents.

Now clearly, SOMEONE believed in those false documents – else why keep churning them out?

The early Church had no concept of a New Testament, and as the concept slowly emerged, there were continual battles over which documents were to be regarded as inspired.

The Muratorian Fragment is a fine example – it doesn’t claim to identify inspired writings (as some claim), it merely lists documents “suitable to be read in church.” And the Muratorian list is not identical with the current Canon of the New Testament, and bears on its face evidence of disagreement – it discusses document OTHER Christians thought suitable (such as the Shepard of Hermas) and contains in the margin, next to the Epistles of Peter the notation “una sola” indicating someone thought 2 Peter was not suitable.

michaelp:

Yes, and they had letters to uncle sam and aunt susie. Most of the early Church agreed upon the Gospels, Pauline corpus, and Acts. There were a FEW other books that SOME held to be inspired. So what? They still had 80% of the NT as we have it today and they believed it to be inspired. That is my point.

A FEW other books? They had more Gospels alone than the whole number of books in the New Testament (about 40 known Gospels versus 27 books in the whole NT.)

michaelp:

They had the concept of inspiration. They did not need any concept of “canon” to believe them to be inspired.

No. The concept of the New Testament, being co-equal with the Old Testament was slow to emerge. The reverence and authority accorded to the various gospels and acts and so on was well short of that accorded to books of the Old Testament.

And yes, they needed a canon – how else was the average Catholic to distinguish between the four inspired Gospels and the 36 non-inspired gospels?

michaelp:

This is my arguement that the virtually all the early Church DID have access to most of the NT. If you disagree, you are free to do so, but you need to give evidence otherwise.

I and others on this thread haved already listed many non-canonical books that were floating around – far more than the canonical ones.

I have cited the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment.

I might also counterpose to your example of the Epistle of Peter referring to the Pauline Epistles as scripture the example of the Epistle of Jude quoting the Book of Enoch. Does that make Enoch inspired scripture?

michaelp:

No, inspiration is the important thing. Not some concept called “canonization.” We use that word simply to describe a collection of inspired books…

Without a canon, how does the average Catholic know which books are inspired and which are not?

IF your argument is correct, the false and non-inspired books could never have come into existance – everyone would have seen them as false at the outset.

IF your argument is correct, there would never have been any dispute as to which documents were suitable to be read in Church.

IF your argument is correct, there would never have been any dispute as to which documents would be included in the canon.

IF your argument is correct, the whole corpus of the inspired New Testament would have emerged in the early Second Century.

michaelp:

The word or the concept itself add nothing to the authority of the writing. It sure didn’t to any of the early Church fathers as they quoted them as authoritative. Peter was not waiting for the concept of “canon” to come around before he said that Paul’s letters were inspired.

Thanks again for your comments.

Michael

That’s a meaningless position – one might as well say the whole Bible, Old and New Testament existed in the mind of God, and therefore it existed in some way before Man was created.

The fact is, MANY documents were cited and claimed to be worthy of special reverence and authority, or inspired.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

It is far more than a mere technicality. Given the profusion of gospels, acts, and so on that were in existance in the early days, one cannot say there was a New Testament until there was a “grouping of books.”

michaelp:

Vern, let me ask you a question. Did Peter believe that Paul’s letters were inspired and part of Scripture

Begging the question – the idea in ONE document that some documents were scripture doesn’t make a New Testament.

If you rely on the Epistles of Peter to validate the Epistles of Paul, where do you find an epistle to validate Peter? And where do you find an epistle to validate THAT epistle?

The concept of the New Testament emerged only slowly, and the development of the Canon was an essential final act. Until then, there was a plethora of possible “scripture.”

I don’t need to validate Peter. I just trust that historically Peter, as an apostle, said that Paul’s writings were inspired to the Churches scattered throughout Asia minor.

I am not trying to get a “New Testament” out of this. That is simply a concept and name that is given to verious inspired writings that were written concerning Christ. It has no power or validity outside the individual writings.

All I am talking about is the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus. I am not even arguing for their inspiration here. I am just saying that 80% of the NT that we have today was in circulation and believed to be inspired by the end of the first centrury. That is it. This is in response to people who overstate by saying that the early Church did not have the New Testament until the fourth century. This is an overstatement since the early church did have the majority of it. In fact, they had the most essential books.

Vern, this does not mean that you have to stop believing as you do. Apostolic authority does not soley rest on the reverse of this arguement. There are not even any Catholic scholars that would argue against the facts of what I have said.

Thanks,

Michael

Michael

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

I have the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of John, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Andrew, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Thomas, and many other writings on my shelf that seem to be biblical, but ultimately were rejected by the authentic authority of the Catholic Church.

There were alot more than this. What do you think? There would not be any other writing for the first 150 years of Christianity? People wrote just like they do today. Most of those writings that you referred to have a very late date and were never even seriously considered by anyone at all. The Church fathers were unanimous concerning the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus. That is 80% of the NT that was in circulation, that all the early church had access to, and that all believed to be the word of God.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Just wanted to tell all of you I am enjoying your dialog God Bless,Lisa