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

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

This is your evidence that the early Church had all of it.

At the risk of repeating myself, they had iron and coal, too – but they didn’t have a railroad.

michaelp:

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?

You say “most” of the Church had “most” of the NT and provide no numbers!!

In fact, I thought I gave a pretty good historical overview of tradtion. After all, I pointed out even the inspired authors of the New Testament make reference to oral teachings beyond their writings. I pointed out several important early Church figures who made use of, or referred to such traditions. And I gave examples of where this tradition was written down.

What more do you want?

michaelp:

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

You could SAY it’s proof they had computers and television – but that wouldn’t be true, either. Read the verse again:

“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.” Does John say “These things are written elsewhere?”

michaelp:

Now, what proof do you have that they had “all of it?” Seriously, I want proof that they had all of it.

If they didn’t have all of it by the time the last Apostle died, they didn’t get it – it’s that simple.

Now, unlike you, I don’t claim that EVERYONE had all of it, or even that MOST churches had MOST of it. The tradition handed down to us is traceable to specific sources – some of it redacted by those who heard it from the Apostles themselves, and some written some much later.

 

[michaelp]

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.

Did you even look at the evidence for this Vern. Do you even read my posts? Or is your mind made up to such a degree that you just don’t care what the evidence says?

Let me ask you this, what more evidence could possibly convince you the the early Church had most of the NT and believed that most of it was inspired?

And also wrote the Diatessaron.

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?”

No dispute about the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline corpus. That is all. You continue to think I am trying to accomplish too much. My task is rather humble and accepted by every Scholar that I have ever seen. Go ask an apologist.

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.)

Of course I know that. I was just tracing the dispute through the centuries. Eusebius concluded this voyage. And all three centuries were the same message. The early church had access to at least 80% of the NT and believed that it was inspired.

I see you don’t even deal with the other writers. I just don’t think that you are really wanting to discuss this seriously.

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.

Fine, I gave positive proof over and over again. You refute it with opinion, and you say you don’t need to give any positive proof for your opinion.

This is going nowhere Vern. Please don’t be offended, but I think we have said enough about this unless you provide something beyond opinion.

Thanks for your continued responses,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

If they didn’t have all of it by the time the last Apostle died, they didn’t get it – it’s that simple.

You can’t be serious. This is your proof? I could say the same thing about the NT.

You said that they had “all of it” with regards to tradition.

1. What is “all of it”? List it out for me or provide a link to “all of it.”
2. Just by saying they refer to tradition does not mean anything other than they had tratition. It does not deal with how much they had, nor what it was.

Could you provide me with some evidence?

Now, unlike you, I don’t claim that EVERYONE had all of it, or even that MOST churches had MOST of it. The tradition handed down to us is traceable to specific sources – some of it redacted by those who heard it from the Apostles themselves, and some written some much later.

OK, how much of it did they have. Provide the evidence like I have for the Scripture.

 

[michaelp]

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 QUOTE]

Actually 100% of it existed.

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./

I agree, but shortly into the second certury all of the evidence from every person and every area of significance shows that the the entire Church that we know of had 80% of the NT and believed it to be inspired.

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.

I respect that, but what I am saying is that if you based this need of Tradition on the assumption the the Church did not have a NT until the 4th century, this is wrong. Not saying that YOU are doing this, but there are many who are.

Michael

 

[redeemed1]

Obviously, many apostolic books were accepted as sacred writings even in the first century. However, significant portions of the NT were still under dispute for many centuries to come.
Furthermore, other books currently not considered Scripture were thought to be Scripture. So, the NT “as we know it today” was not *universally *fixed as Sacred Scripture until after the 4th century.

Excuse me but by the end of the second century the canon was pretty much established. You err in thinking that the rcc has dibbs on the Scriptures. They do not. No one can bind God’s Word but Him, and thankfully, thanks to the Lord, His Holy Spirit, and the early “Christians”, we do have it today, but it isn’t solely due to the Rcc, it is due to God preserving His Word; the Ultimate Authority. Amen?

 

[kepha1]

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of *sola Scriptura *they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books *constitute *Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible’s *self-authenticating *nature, and the *self-interpreting *maxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

 

[kepha1]

Explanation of Symbols:

• Book accepted (or quoted)
  ? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
  x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited

New Testament Period (c.35-90)

In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture

---

Apostolic Fathers (90-160) **************************************************************************** Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings

Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr’s “Gospels” contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture

Acts Scarcely known or quoted-----
Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy: x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr---- Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr----
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr-------
*1 Peter *Not considered canonical------------
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited -------------
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp ------------------------
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr --------
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp

Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century

Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament ------------Gospels Accepted
Acts Gradually accepted ---------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria ----------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen

• First accepted by Clement of Alexandria ---------------------
  James Not canonical
  ? First mentioned by Origen
  x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria -------------------
  1 Peter Gradual acceptance
• First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria -----------
  2 Peter Not canonical
  ? First mentioned by Origen
  x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria -------------------
  *1 John *Gradual acceptance
• First accepted by Irenaeus
  x Origen --------------------------------------------------------
  2 John Not canonical
  ? Origen
  x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria ---------
  *3 John *Not canonical
  ? Origen
  x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria -----
  Jude Gradual acceptance
• Clement of Alexandria
  x Origen

---

*Revelation *Gradual acceptance

• First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
  x Barococcio Canon, c.206 =================================================================== Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
  Shepherd of Hermas * Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria ------
  The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen ------------------------------
  The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria -------------------
  *The Acts of Paul ** Origen
• Appears in Greek, Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations -----
  Gospel of Hebrews * Clement of Alexandria

 

[kepha1]

Muratorian Canon (c.190)

Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter

Includes *The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon *

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)

Summary: The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed -----

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted ---------------
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West -------------------------------
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West -------------------------
1 Peter Fairly well accepted –
2 Peter Still disputed

1 John Fairly well accepted

*2, 3 John, Jude *Still disputed -------------------------------------

Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325)

Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397) *

Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed ------------------
*Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John *Accepted ----------
*Hebrews *Eventually accepted in the West
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350! ----------------
2 Peter Eventually accepted -----------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted --------------------------
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz =================================================================== Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century ----
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius ---------
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)
Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

Sources for N.T. Canon Chart

(all Protestant):

1. Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2. Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3. Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
   ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM

 

[michaelp]

kepha1:

Muratorian Canon (c.190)

Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter

Includes *The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon *

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)

Summary: The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed -----

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted ---------------
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West -------------------------------
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West -------------------------
1 Peter Fairly well accepted –
2 Peter Still disputed

1 John Fairly well accepted

*2, 3 John, Jude *Still disputed -------------------------------------

Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325)

Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397) *

Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed ------------------
*Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John *Accepted ----------
*Hebrews *Eventually accepted in the West
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350! ----------------
2 Peter Eventually accepted -----------------------------------
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted --------------------------
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz =================================================================== Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century ----
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius ---------
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)
Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

Sources for N.T. Canon Chart

(all Protestant):

1. Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2. Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3. Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
   ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM

Thank you. This verifies my point. Although these numbers look better than 80%. But nevertheless, thanks for the information. I do hope that this information will stop the misinformation that this post was designed for.

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vern,

All of it.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You can’t be serious. This is your proof? I could say the same thing about the NT.

And you’d be right, because the NT was part of that tradition. They certainly had all of the NT by the end of the first century. They just didn’t know if it was Scripture or not, especially when in the 2nd century, several heretics were using Matthew’s Gospel for their purposes. Such use placed some doubt upon Matthew’s Gospel as being authentic, until St. Irenaeus vouched for it. Just like now, it takes the authority of the Church to determine heterodoxy from orthodoxy.

 

[michaelp]

I have to say. I like your style. --“all of it”-- Evidence: don’t really need any beyond one Scripture and a general statement about the passing on of teaching that has nothing to do with “any of it,” much less “all of it.”\ But if that is enough for you, more power to you. Again, I am baffled that you would argue so strongly against all the EVIDENCE that I presented and not think your belief even remotely accountable to the same standards.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the unbiased person would be convinced by you “arguments” for “all of it.”
But thanks for giving it your best shot. Hey, just my opinion thought–and it is not infallible.

This has been a very educational thread, thanks for participating.

Michael

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I have to say. I like your style. --“all of it.” Evidence? Don’t really need any beyond one Scripture that does not even speak to the subject explicitly or implicitly and a general statement about the passing on of teaching that has nothing to do with “any of it,” much less “all of it.”

But if that is enough for you, more power to you. Again, I am baffled that you would argue so strongly against all the EVIDENCE that I presented and not think your belief even remotely accountable to the same standards.

Can you even tell me what “it” is? No, I don’t mean a general statement about tradition (we all believe in tradition). I mean tell me EXACTLY what “it” is. I can tell you what I believe all of Scripture to be. I would really and truly like to know. I understand that it is living. But if they had “all of it” in the early Church, who had “it” and how do you know? Give me names and documentation.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the unbiased person would be convinced by you “arguments” for “all of it” thus far. This would really help.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

And you’d be right, because the NT was part of that tradition. They certainly had all of the NT by the end of the first century. They just didn’t know if it was Scripture or not, especially when in the 2nd century, several heretics were using Matthew’s Gospel for their purposes. Such use placed some doubt upon Matthew’s Gospel as being authentic, until St. Irenaeus vouched for it. Just like now, it takes the authority of the Church to determine heterodoxy from orthodoxy.

This is question begging that ignores the evidence that I presented that the early church was in agreement and had access to 80% of the NT and believed them to be inspired.

Maybe I can approach it this way. Do you know of any Church Father who rejected the Gospels, Acts, or the Pauline corpus? If so, could you name them and site examples?

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

1. What is “all of it”? List it out for me or provide a link to “all of it.”

I suggest the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *It touches upon all of it, but as I said before, Christianity is not a “religion of the book.” Sorry if you want everything written down, but that’s not how real families work. I have never written down the manner in which I will celebrate Christmas every year, yet my family seems to remember to do so, even though we don’t write everything down. Neither the apostles nor my apostolic church is as anxious as you about allowing oral tradition to remain oral. It’s a sign of faith.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

I suggest the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *It touches upon all of it, but as I said before, Christianity is not a “religion of the book.” Sorry if you want everything written down, but that’s not how real families work. I have never written down the manner in which I will celebrate Christmas every year, yet my family seems to remember to do so, even though we don’t write everything down. Neither the apostles nor my apostolic church is as anxious as you about allowing oral tradition to remain oral. It’s a sign of faith.

So the catechism is not “all of it” but it contains “all of it”?

Or “all of it” is just floating around out there somewhere? Does the Pope contain “all of it”?

Again, what proof, real proof, do you have that the early church contained all of it?

Two requests:

1. Can you show me this same catechism in the early Church (100-350)?
2. Can I get a copy of “all of it” extracted from the catechism? If not, why. All information can be written down. It would be helpful if it is really “out there” somewhere?

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… had access to 80% of the NT.

I agreed with you that they have access to the NT, in fact, all of it by the end of the 1st century at the lastest. They also had access to what the Gnostics were teaching, what the Ebionites were teaching, what the Circumcisor party were teaching, Docetism, Arianism, Universalism, etc.

What was heterodox? What was orthodox? Athanasius asserts that had the expositions of the Arians come from apostolical men, “there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statement.” Seems the criteria for determining what is orthodox determined by apostocal men.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… had access to 80% of the NT.

I agreed with you that they have access to the NT, in fact, all of it by the end of the 1st century at the lastest. They also had access to what the Gnostics were teaching, what the Ebionites were teaching, what the Circumcisor party were teaching, Docetism, Arianism, Universalism, etc.

What was heterodox? What was orthodox? Athanasius asserted that had the expositions of the Arians come from apostolical men, “there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statement.” Seems the criteria for determining what is orthodox is determined by sure teaching of apostolical men.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

All information can be written down.

Written communicaton can be easily misunderstood. The various and contradicting interpretations of Scripture proves this. A letter can be misunderstood. With oral communication, two-way communication occurs which drastically helps to reduce misunderstanding. The Bible cannot say, “Wait! You have misunderstood me.” The Church can.

According to St. John, writing down everything Jesus said and did was impractical. Their mission certainly called for another approach. We’ll stick to that approach, and allow the voice of God to come from those ordained by God to care for our souls, to whom we owe our obedience (cf. Heb 13:17).

Just because something isn’t written down doesn’t mean that it isn’t authoritative. Is the details of the Passover Seder meal in the OT? How 'bout Hannukah? (ooops … that’s at least mentioned in the OT … 2 Maccabees)

Where is the prophecy that “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt 2:23) prior to Matthew mentioning it? It seems that he presumed his audience to know of such prophesy, as he doesn’t seem compelled to explain it to them first. Yet I don’t see it written down, do you? I don’t think it was written down. Instead Mathew says it was “what was spoken by the prophets.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Kepha1,

Your chart doesn’t show the Council of Hippo in 393. Whassup w/that?