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

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

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.

Now THERE’S a cop-out for you. YOU interpret Peter as you see fit,. and the rest of us are bound to accept YOUR interpretation?

michaelp:

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.

What ARE you trying to get out of it?

Do you claim that the documents that make up the New Testament existed before the concept of a New Testament emerged? We agree.

Do you claim that the documents that make up the New Testament were accorded reverence and authority within some parts of the Church? We agree

Do you deny that many other documents that are not in the New Testament existed before the concept of a New Testament emerged?

Do you deny that many of these other documents that are not in the New Testament accorded reverence and authority within some parts of the Church?

michaelp:

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 .

Along with literally dozens of other documents – including an almost bewildering array of Gospels.

michaelp:

and believed to be inspired by the end of the first centrury. .

Along with literally dozens of other documents – including an almost bewildering array of Gospels.

And the concept of “believed to be inspired” is misleading. The attitude toward the various documents that make up the New Testament is ambiguous.

If it were clear-cut, why were there so many disputes over which were suitable to be read in church?

michaelp:

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.

They had iron, too, and coal – does that mean they had a railroad?

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

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

Which Church Fathers said the four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus were scripture?

In fact, there was controversy over the Pauline Corpus – including the authenticity of some epsitles (Hebrews, for example) and the wording – because various heretics had edited the letters.

 

[michaelp]

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

No, what I am saying is that Clement, Ignatius, Irenaus, Justin, and others in the early church had the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus and believed them to be inspired. Just like you believe them to be inspired.

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.

Who said that they needed to have a “concept of the New Testament canon” before they believed they were inspired? Do you believe that they believed them to be inspired? If so, we are on the same page. If not, you have not presented any historical evidence to the contrary.

Vern, you really seem to be misunderstanding. I think you defensiveness is causing you to think unclearly. This really does not HAVE to effect your catholic faith. You can keep it even though the early church did have 80% of the documents that we now call the “New Testament.”

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.

Read Peter. He believed Paul to be inspired. Read Paul, he believed Luke to be inspired (and therefore Acts would naturally be added). Read the early Church Fathers. They believed AT LEAST the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus to be inspired.

That is all that I am saying.

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.)

Most of these were written very late and never even considered. But even if they all were (which they were not), the fact still remains that the early church had 80% of the NT.

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.

Look Vern, we may just have to agree to disagree, unless you can produce more than these creedal statements of belief. If you want to put forth some evidence that the early Church did not possess or believe that the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired, good. If not, I already know how you feel about it, and I appreciate that. If you are to argue against this, please don’t argue against something that I am not saying.

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?

Goodness, you really have not studied this issue have you? Do you know the dates of the other 36 "gospels’? That would be a good place to start because you are making a mountian out of a molehill. Get the dates, and then ask the question. It becomes pretty self-evident when the dates of the writings are 100-200 years after the death of the supposed author. I don’t know about you, but for me that is not too hard to tell. Besides all of this, the majority of these were not even known, referred to, or considered for the canon.

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

This does not militate in any way against the fact that the NT Church had access to 80% of the NT.
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?

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

You look at the weight of evidence. I noticed that you have not since you are actually considering book that were written 100-200 years after the death of the alleged writer. Again, it is not that hard to figure out. It was not for the early church either since there was agreement upon 80% of the NT.

 

[michaelp]

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.

Goodness pseudopigrapha is a fact of history. It was even around before Christ. You don’t have to have a canon to recognize pseudopigrapha.

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

There was not dispute about 80% of the NT. Your claim makes no sense.

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

Same as above.

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

It did. But it was not univerally accepted as the rest. Although, the majority of it was accepted by most of the church.

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.

Say what? Don’t get it.

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

OK . . .Thanks.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Which Church Fathers said the four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus were scripture?

In fact, there was controversy over the Pauline Corpus – including the authenticity of some epsitles (Hebrews, for example) and the wording – because various heretics had edited the letters.

Read the original post. You will see a list.

Hebrews was not written by Paul and therefore it is not part of the corpus.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Now THERE’S a cop-out for you. YOU interpret Peter as you see fit,. and the rest of us are bound to accept YOUR interpretation?

Vern, this type of polemic does not accomplish anything.

Do you claim that the documents that make up the New Testament existed before the concept of a New Testament emerged? We agree.

Do you claim that the documents that make up the New Testament were accorded reverence and authority within some parts of the Church? We agree

Do you deny that many other documents that are not in the New Testament existed before the concept of a New Testament emerged?

They all did. The concept of the NT was later than all the writings. The concept of their authority pre-dates the canon.

Do you deny that many of these other documents that are not in the New Testament accorded reverence and authority within some parts of the Church?

Very few of them were. But the exection does not determine the rule. The fact is that 80% of the NT was accepted and availible to the Church. Just go ask one of your apologists. They will agree.

And the concept of “believed to be inspired” is misleading. The attitude toward the various documents that make up the New Testament is ambiguous.

That is ambiguous!!

If it were clear-cut, why were there so many disputes over which were suitable to be read in church?

It was only clear cut to the 80% that is the subject of this discussion.

I just realized that I already answered this. Did I? I thought that it sounded like were going in circles. Thanks,.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

No, what I am saying is that Clement, Ignatius, Irenaus, Justin, and others in the early church had the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus and believed them to be inspired. Just like you believe them to be inspired.

Who said that they needed to have a “concept of the New Testament canon” before they believed they were inspired? Do you believe that they believed them to be inspired? If so, we are on the same page. If not, you have not presented any historical evidence to the contrary.

Vern, you really seem to be misunderstanding. I think you defensiveness is causing you to think unclearly. This really does not HAVE to effect your catholic faith. You can keep it even though the early church did have 80% of the documents that we now call the “New Testament.”

Read Peter. He believed Paul to be inspired. Read Paul, he believed Luke to be inspired (and therefore Acts would naturally be added). Read the early Church Fathers. They believed AT LEAST the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus to be inspired.

That is all that I am saying.

Most of these were written very late and never even considered. But even if they all were (which they were not), the fact still remains that the early church had 80% of the NT.

Look Vern, we may just have to agree to disagree, unless you can produce more than these creedal statements of belief. If you want to put forth some evidence that the early Church did not possess or believe that the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired, good. If not, I already know how you feel about it, and I appreciate that. If you are to argue against this, please don’t argue against something that I am not saying.

Goodness, you really have not studied this issue have you? Do you know the dates of the other 36 "gospels’? That would be a good place to start because you are making a mountian out of a molehill. Get the dates, and then ask the question. It becomes pretty self-evident when the dates of the writings are 100-200 years after the death of the supposed author. I don’t know about you, but for me that is not too hard to tell. Besides all of this, the majority of these were not even known, referred to, or considered for the canon.

This does not militate in any way against the fact that the NT Church had access to 80% of the NT.
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?

You look at the weight of evidence. I noticed that you have not since you are actually considering book that were written 100-200 years after the death of the alleged writer. Again, it is not that hard to figure out. It was not for the early church either since there was agreement upon 80% of the NT.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

It was only clear cut to the 80% that is the subject of this discussion.

No. You mistake the struggle to establish the validity and place of the documents later admitted to the canon as the end of the struggle.

michaelp:

I just realized that I already answered this. Did I? I thought that it sounded like were going in circles. Thanks,.

Michael

Strange things are happening with the database – I think a reply of mine was somehow lost.

I recommend reading “The New Testament, It’s Making and Meaning” (Professor Harry Gamble, Fortress Press, 1985.)

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

No. You mistake the struggle to establish the validity and place of the documents later admitted to the canon as the end of the struggle.

Strange things are happening with the database – I think a reply of mine was somehow lost.

I recommend reading “The New Testament, It’s Making and Meaning” (Professor Harry Gamble, Fortress Press, 1985.)

Thanks Vern.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Thanks Vern.

Michael

You’re welcome.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Church fathers were unanimous concerning the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus.

Yes, and they were also unanimous regarding the Theodotian recension of the Book of Daniel, but protestantism rejects it. Strangely inconsistent.

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, and they were also unanimous regarding the Theodotian recension of the Book of Daniel, but protestantism rejects it. Strangely inconsistent.

Kind of like the Fundamentalists who demand we accept the Genesis creation story as literally true – but have no problem wiht divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus specifically forbids it.

 

[yinekka]

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.

It is true that 80%, or some percentage - I haven’t done the maths- of what we now call the NT existed by the end of the first century but I don’t think that we can extrapolate from that that all Christians, by the end of the first century had knowledge of all of the scrolls.
Commonsense tells me that they may have had knowledge, via their bishops, priests and deacons, of some of them but considering that the Church was in a constant state of persecution and holy writings were burnt along with their owners I doubt that at any one time 80% (your figure) existed together at one time very often, if at all.

This is why we Catholics (are you a Catholic, by the way?) believe we can rely on the oral Tradition of the Church, passed down by Peter and the other apostles to their successors as well as what we now know as the Old and New Testament.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

It is true that 80%, or some percentage - I haven’t done the maths- of what we now call the NT existed by the end of the first century but I don’t think that we can extrapolate from that that all Christians, by the end of the first century had knowledge of all of the scrolls.
Commonsense tells me that they may have had knowledge, via their bishops, priests and deacons, of some of them but considering that the Church was in a constant state of persecution and holy writings were burnt along with their owners I doubt that at any one time 80% (your figure) existed together at one time very often, if at all.

This is why we Catholics (are you a Catholic, by the way?) believe we can rely on the oral Tradition of the Church, passed down by Peter and the other apostles to their successors as well as what we now know as the Old and New Testament.

That’s correct – in fact, a good case can be made for 100% of the New Testament to be in existance by the end of the First Century. And there were always SOME who believed in SOME of these documents. But there were a lot of OTHER documentsthat had their adherants.

And as time went on, there were more and more such documents.

The process of forming the New Testament lasted about 350 years – and at times it was a serious struggle. Through it all, the guiding light was Catholic Tradition.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

That’s correct – in fact, a good case can be made for 100% of the New Testament to be in existance by the end of the First Century. And there were always SOME who believed in SOME of these documents. But there were a lot of OTHER documentsthat had their adherants.

And as time went on, there were more and more such documents.

The process of forming the New Testament lasted about 350 years – and at times it was a serious struggle. Through it all, the guiding light was Catholic Tradition.

I know that I am going to regret saying this, but how much of Catholic tradition (unwritten) did they have in the early Church? And can you substantiate it like I did?

I am not Catholic by the way,

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I know that I am going to regret saying this, but how much of Catholic tradition (unwritten) did they have in the early Church?

All of it.

michaelp:

And can you substantiate it like I did?

Much better. The New Testament makes frequent allusions to things taught orally. The Gospel of John says:

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
The Apostolic Fathers frequently refer to oral teachings. The Didache is a good example.

Later writers discuss such traditions frequently – the Polycarp/Irenaeus arguments on the identity of the author of “Revelation” is an example.

michaelp:

I am not Catholic by the way,

Michael

I guessed. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[michaelp]

That’s correct – in fact, a good case can be made for 100% of the New Testament to be in existance by the end of the First Century. And there were always SOME who believed in SOME of these documents. But there were a lot of OTHER documentsthat had their adherants.

Again Vern, this is misleading. There were most who believed and had access to most of the documents, there were some who had few others.

The concensus between the 2nd cetury father was already that there were only four Gospels, the rest were considered spurious already. This is attested to by Irenaeus, “The Word” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape but held together by one Spirit.” Tatian, the pupil of Justin Martyr made a harmony of the four.

Eusibius tells us without reservation that the Gospels, Acts, Pauline corpus was alway universally accepted. You never see any dispute about these books.

Let me list out to you the books that Eusibius says were in contention and you will see how small the number is even by his day. The Acts of Paul, Didache, and the Shepherd. And these books he said were all considered spurious by most all the early Church. As for the rest of the NT (the other 20%) he says that the majority accepted them as inspired. By this time, they were even calling it the “New Testament” (not that that makes any difference).

Doesn’t look like the grim picture that you have painted.

Again, if you want to contend with my contention that the majority of the Church had 80% of the NT and believed it to be inspired, good, I would love to learn. But if you don’t put forth any evidence I cannot learn from your comments.

Thanks again,

Michael

And as time went on, there were more and more such documents.

The process of forming the New Testament lasted about 350 years – and at times it was a serious struggle. Through it all, the guiding light was Catholic Tradition.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

All of it.

Much better. The New Testament makes frequent allusions to things taught orally. The Gospel of John says:

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
The Apostolic Fathers frequently refer to oral teachings. The Didache is a good example.

Later writers discuss such traditions frequently – the Polycarp/Irenaeus arguments on the identity of the author of “Revelation” is an example.

This is your evidence that the early Church had all of it. You argue with all of my evidence concerning the NT that is most Catholic scholars do not even dispute, and you just say “all of it” and quote a Bible verse and the Fathers say they had tradition? Come on. Why do you hold me to such high standards, but you don’t have to live up to them yourself?

I could have very well used the same verse and said that “this is proof that they has all of the NT documents.”

Now, what proof do you have that they had “all of it?” Seriously, I want proof that they had all of it. I gave you proof that they believed and had access to at least 80% of the NT (even if you did disagree [with no evidence to the contrary by the way]). Now show me proof that the early Church had “all of it” concerning tradition?

Look forward,

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Come on, it is not that bad is it?

BTW: Good to hear from you!

Yeah…It is :banghead:


Count on hearin’ from me more later

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Again Vern, this is misleading. There were most who believed and had access to most of the documents, there were some who had few others.

How do you know that? What is your basis of saying, “Most?” Did someone do a census and hand out a questionnaire?

The evidence is, there were many struggles in the Church, and these often revolved around spurious documents and teachings. If only a small minority were involved in these heresies, there would never have been such titanic struggles.

I repeat, you mistake the struggle for its conclusion.

michaelp:

The concensus between the 2nd cetury father was already that there were only four Gospels, the rest were considered spurious already. This is attested to by Irenaeus, “The Word” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape but held together by one Spirit.”

Again, you mistake the struggle for its conclusion.

michaelp:

Tatian, the pupil of Justin Martyr made a harmony of the four.

And also wrote the Diatessaron.

michaelp:

Eusibius tells us without reservation that the Gospels, Acts, Pauline corpus was alway universally accepted. You never see any dispute about these books.

That’s fairly late in the game – and if you “never see any dispute,” why did Iraenaus write? Who was he arguing with if there was “no dispute?”

That’s what I mean by mistaking the struggle for its conclusion.

michaelp:

Let me list out to you the books that Eusibius says were in contention and you will see how small the number is even by his day. The Acts of Paul, Didache, and the Shepherd. And these books he said were all considered spurious by most all the early Church. As for the rest of the NT (the other 20%) he says that the majority accepted them as inspired. By this time, they were even calling it the “New Testament” (not that that makes any difference).

I hope I’m not offending you by pointing out that Eusebius was a 4th Century Christian – not a 2nd or 3rd. He was separated by 150 to 200 years from Iraneaus, Justin, and so on. (I make this point not to talk down to you, but for the benefit for those following this thread.)

In other words, Eusebius was writing near the END of the struggle, not at the beginning. We would normally expect him to make the comments that he did – in the vein that “In earlier times there was much dispute. Nowadays, it has boiled down to a few disputed documents.”

michaelp:

Again, if you want to contend with my contention that the majority of the Church had 80% of the NT and believed it to be inspired, good, I would love to learn. But if you don’t put forth any evidence I cannot learn from your comments.

The problem is, you make unwarranted assertions and ask me to prove a negative – you don’t offer hard evidence that “most” believed and “most” had access – that’s the basis of my remark about a census and a questionnaire.

The way to deal with such an argument is to show the historical continuity of the development of the canon – from Iranaeus in the 2nd Century having to argue that there were four Gospels, to Eusebius in the 4th Century telling us that the Four were accepted but there was still debate about some other books.