When did the Canon of Scripture close?

[Ron_Conte]

It is commonly said that the Canon of Scripture closed with the death of the last Apostle, John the Gospel writer. However, this is most likely not true.

The Gospel of John was apparently edited and completed (with some additions) by a group of other persons, termed John’s disciples. These were probably NOT a discrete group who followed John and each knew him personally (like the Twelve). They were a loose-knit group, some of whom may have known John personally, some many have heard him speak but never really met him, some may have only known of his teachings second hand. It is unlikely that such a group would have edited and added to the work of John while he was still alive. So this work of completing the Gospel was done after his death. The same group may also have completed the Book of Revelation (in my theory).

The Gospel of Mark has an ending that may not have been the work of Mark, but was added to Mark’s Gospel at a later date. This addition could have occurred after Mark’s death; we are not certain of the date of this passage (16:9-20). It may even have been added after the death of the last Apostle.

The letters of John were possibly not written by John the Gospel writer, but by John the Elder. The style and language of the letters is of someone who has learned from John’s Gospel, but who expresses that understanding in his own manner. These letters also may have been written after the death of John the Gospel writer.

So it is not clear when the Canon of Scripture was closed, i.e. when the NT was completed. But there is substantial evidence weighing against the idea that the death of John the Apostle was when the Canon closed. And since he died late in the first century A.D., it is possible that the Canon was closed sometime in the second century.

And even if we suppose John’s work of Revelation to be the last book of the NT to be written, once he completed it, then Canon would be closed then, and not later on, whenever he died.

 

[Ignatius]

It is commonly said that the Canon of Scripture closed with the death of the last Apostle, John the Gospel writer. However, this is most likely not true.

The Gospel of John was apparently edited and completed (with some additions) by a group of other persons, termed John’s disciples. These were probably NOT a discrete group who followed John and each knew him personally (like the Twelve). They were a loose-knit group, some of whom may have known John personally, some many have heard him speak but never really met him, some may have only known of his teachings second hand. It is unlikely that such a group would have edited and added to the work of John while he was still alive. So this work of completing the Gospel was done after his death. The same group may also have completed the Book of Revelation (in my theory).

The Gospel of Mark has an ending that may not have been the work of Mark, but was added to Mark’s Gospel at a later date. This addition could have occurred after Mark’s death; we are not certain of the date of this passage (16:9-20). It may even have been added after the death of the last Apostle.

The letters of John were possibly not written by John the Gospel writer, but by John the Elder. The style and language of the letters is of someone who has learned from John’s Gospel, but who expresses that understanding in his own manner. These letters also may have been written after the death of John the Gospel writer.

So it is not clear when the Canon of Scripture was closed, i.e. when the NT was completed. But there is substantial evidence weighing against the idea that the death of John the Apostle was when the Canon closed. And since he died late in the first century A.D., it is possible that the Canon was closed sometime in the second century.

And even if we suppose John’s work of Revelation to be the last book of the NT to be written, once he completed it, then Canon would be closed then, and not later on, whenever he died.

The Canon of Scripture as we now have it was infallibly declared by Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. That same Canon is identical to and has been confirmed innumerable times down through the ages to our own time.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Canon of Scripture as we now have it was infallibly declared by Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. That same Canon is identical to and has been confirmed innumerable times down through the ages to our own time.

That Council is not Ecumenical, and the Pope’s words do not appear to meet the conditions for the use of Papal Infallibility. That statement would therefore fall under the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium, along with the statements of a few other local Councils.

The Magisterium alone did not define the Canon. Rather, the Magisterium interpreted and taught from Tradition which books are sacred and canonical. The Magisterium can only teach truths found in Tradition and Scripture. Magisterial teachings do not come directly from God as a new Revelation, but from the Deposit of Faith with the guidance of the Spirit.

 

[Poco]

According to my “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, the last “canonical” text to be written was 2 Peter and the date range given is 100-150 AD.

From what I have read, the Council of Rome in 382 “agreed” on a list of 73 books, the same 73 books in the current canon. These same 73 books were ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787) and Florence (1442). The canon was “finalized” at the Council of Trent in 1546.

 

[Ron_Conte]

According to my “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, the last “canonical” text to be written was 2 Peter and the date range given is 100-150 AD.

That particular commentary assumes that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, who was put to death during the persecution of Nero. Scripture is infallible, and the Letter of 2 Peter explicitly states that it is from him. So a commentary that says the letter was written long after his death is implying that Scripture is not inerrant.

From what I have read, the Council of Rome in 382 “agreed” on a list of 73 books, the same 73 books in the current canon. These same 73 books were ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787) and Florence (1442). The canon was “finalized” at the Council of Trent in 1546.

All Councils are not equal. The local Councils that you cite cannot teach infallibly. Only Florence and Trent infallibly taught the Canon.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Yeah, the New Jerome Bible Commentary is not a good source to go to if you are looking for traditional Catholic thought. As Ron said, it claims to be written by Peter, and to say that it is a forgery is as if it is saying Scripture is being deceptive. The whole unorthodox approach from like-minded schools of thought is a red flag.

 

[Poco]

That particular commentary assumes that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, who was put to death during the persecution of Nero. Scripture is infallible, and the Letter of 2 Peter explicitly states that it is from him. So a commentary that says the letter was written long after his death is implying that Scripture is not inerrant.

The date of composition and inerrancy of 2 Peter is subject for another thread. I was simply trying to make the point that all books in our current NT were completed well before the first council which decided on which books should “make up the Bible”.
(I realize I didn’t state that very well but I hope you get my point.)

All Councils are not equal. The local Councils that you cite cannot teach infallibly. Only Florence and Trent infallibly taught the Canon.

I never said nor implied that any council prior to Trent declared anything infallibly. That is why I specifically used the terms “agreed” and “ratified”. I was merely pointing out that from Rome in 382 until Trent the same 73 books were “accepted”.

Yeah, the New Jerome Bible Commentary is not a good source to go to if you are looking for traditional Catholic thought.

Well, my copy of “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, (c) 1990, 1968 has:

Nihil Obstat
Raymond E. Brown, S.S.
Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, S.J.
Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm.
Censores Desputati

Imprimatur
Reverend William J. Kane
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
November 15, 1988

Now, while I haven’t made it all the way across the Tiber yet, I do believe this is an indication that what I read therein will not lead me astray!

As Ron said, it claims to be written by Peter, and to say that it is a forgery is as if it is saying Scripture is being deceptive. The whole unorthodox approach from like-minded schools of thought is a red flag.

Who said anything about forgery or deception?!

 

[COPLAND_3]

Poco,

Notice I pointed out that it is not a good source of traditional Catholic thought. There are plenty of Catholic approved resources that are not traditional in the sense of being something that has been understood over the biggest part of Church history. In recent times the authorship of the Bible has been taught by certain schools of thought that many of the authors of the Bible were not who they claimed they were, as if it was written by someone else who used an apostolic name in order to bring more value upon their writing. Or that certain books like Jonah were just folk tale and that Daniel did not write Daniel but someone wrote it claiming to be Daniel and wrote it after the prophesies were fulfilled posing to write it beforehand as if to make it look like Daniel really got those prophesies right. To me, that is very troubling, though I don’t condemn it because it is Catholic approved, but I do try to let people know that it is not traditional Catholic understanding and it can be rejected just as easily as it can be accepted. One reason I am so hardcore about it is because when I was on my journey to Catholicism I started out reading Catholic material that is Catholic approved but very unorthodox and untraditional resources like the NAB footnotes and also the New Jerome Bible Commentary. At the time I thought that those things were the norm of Catholic teaching, and it was not helping me very much since I was first led to Catholicism by the Early Church Fathers, and those resources like the Jerome Bible Commentary did not resemble anything like what the ancient Christians believed. Thankfully I found more traditional resources that were Catholic approved that was like a breath of fresh air!

I am sorry if I came across being such a critic, I tend to do that over this subject, and perhaps I need work at not coming across like that. It is just more of a heads up that I try to give for those who may not be aware of it.

 

[Ignatius]

That Council is not Ecumenical, and the Pope’s words do not appear to meet the conditions for the use of Papal Infallibility.

Nontheless, The Canon of Scripture that was declared by Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome is the same one infallibly confirmed by Trent.

 

[Poco]

Poco,

I am sorry if I came across being such a critic, I tend to do that over this subject, and perhaps I need work at not coming across like that. It is just more of a heads up that I try to give for those who may not be aware of it.

Hey Copeland,

Thanks for the heads up!

I haven’t read it from cover to cover but I’ve yet to come across anything to give me any doubt. Either about the Bible or the Church. Actually, it is one one of the reasons I finally decided to dive in and make my way across the Tiber! :extrahappy:

 

[simspt]

Hey Copeland,

Thanks for the heads up!

I haven’t read it from cover to cover but I’ve yet to come across anything to give me any doubt. Either about the Bible or the Church. Actually, it is one one of the reasons I finally decided to dive in and make my way across the Tiber! :extrahappy:

Me too! I dont agree with everything Ray Brown et al write about but they have been extremely helpful in my growth and understanding as a Christian also converting to Catholicism. Its no coincidence that both Protestants like Mike Metzger and Catholics have made dedications to these guys (Raymond Brown) in their books. I do appreciate the concerns and criticisms of traditionalists but strongly disagree with some of them labeling guys like Brown as liberal and Bultmann disciples.

 

[simspt]

Me too! I dont agree with everything Ray Brown et al write about but they have been extremely helpful in my growth and understanding as a Christian also converting to Catholicism. Its no coincidence that both Protestants like Mike Metzger and Catholics have made dedications to these guys (Raymond Brown) in their books. I do appreciate the concerns and criticisms of traditionalists but strongly disagree with some of them labeling guys like Brown as liberal and Bultmann disciples.

Bruce Metzger not Mike:blush:

 

[Ron_Conte]

Well, my copy of “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, (c) 1990, 1968 has:

Nihil Obstat
Raymond E. Brown, S.S.
Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, S.J.
Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm.
Censores Desputati

Imprimatur
Reverend William J. Kane
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
November 15, 1988

Now, while I haven’t made it all the way across the Tiber yet, I do believe this is an indication that what I read therein will not lead me astray!

Unfortunately, there are plenty of books with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that contain serious doctrinal errors and even heresies. Those declarations are from the temporal authority, which is fallible, not from the Magisterium.

 

[Agrippa]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of books with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that contain serious doctrinal errors and even heresies. Those declarations are from the temporal authority, which is fallible, not from the Magisterium.

This is a minor point. Nihil Obstat and Imprimaturs are not infallible. That’s true. But they are reliable guideposts because it indicates that a Bishop, or Cardinal, or someone within the hierarchy of Christ’s Church, has rendered an opinion on the matter.

Why would someone simply discard a text with a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur simply because fallible persons in the past have made mistakes?

 

[MarcoPolo]

So it is not clear when the Canon of Scripture was closed, i.e. when the NT was completed.

If I understand correctly, you are saying there is writing in the Bible first written after all the Apostles were dead, possibly by people who never knew John, correct? In reading your post and skimming the thread, did you say why you think this to be the case?

 

[ad_altare_Dei]

It is commonly said that the Canon of Scripture closed with the death of the last Apostle, John the Gospel writer. However, this is most likely not true.

The Gospel of John was apparently edited and completed (with some additions) by a group of other persons, termed John’s disciples. These were probably NOT a discrete group who followed John and each knew him personally (like the Twelve). They were a loose-knit group, some of whom may have known John personally, some many have heard him speak but never really met him, some may have only known of his teachings second hand. It is unlikely that such a group would have edited and added to the work of John while he was still alive. So this work of completing the Gospel was done after his death. The same group may also have completed the Book of Revelation (in my theory).

The Gospel of Mark has an ending that may not have been the work of Mark, but was added to Mark’s Gospel at a later date. This addition could have occurred after Mark’s death; we are not certain of the date of this passage (16:9-20). It may even have been added after the death of the last Apostle.

The letters of John were possibly not written by John the Gospel writer, but by John the Elder. The style and language of the letters is of someone who has learned from John’s Gospel, but who expresses that understanding in his own manner. These letters also may have been written after the death of John the Gospel writer.

So it is not clear when the Canon of Scripture was closed, i.e. when the NT was completed. But there is substantial evidence weighing against the idea that the death of John the Apostle was when the Canon closed. And since he died late in the first century A.D., it is possible that the Canon was closed sometime in the second century.

And even if we suppose John’s work of Revelation to be the last book of the NT to be written, once he completed it, then Canon would be closed then, and not later on, whenever he died.

You haven’t given anyone any reasons to think your claims are true. You simply have asserted that what you say is “apparent” or that “we have reason to believe.” It’s not at all apparent to me that John’s gospel was completed by another source.

Regarding Mark’s gospel, an interesting point. Many think that the longer ending was added because it ends so abruptly, and with so little on the resurrection, without it. Skim any reputable bible commentary to get more information. So whether or not the longer ending is inspired is debatable. I tend to think it was an addition, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important. It would just mean it’s not inspired.

Now to the Letters of John. You’ve made a facile and unlearned point about the style and language of the author and concluded that it could not be the apostle himself. I have heard this many times before and am thoroughly unimpressed. If you read a novel, any novel, you will note stylistic differences between most chapters. In some, you will find style and language changes in the middle of chapters. You find this in poetry too, all over the place. It’s the mark of a good writer, and anyone who has written a couple papers or a short story should know that. You simply don’t write the same way each time but write in a manner that befits your purpose, audience, subject, etc. To think that from style and language differences, we have to conclude the existence of a different writer is absurd. Were it true, we would have to conclude that each chapter of The Sound and the Fury was written by a different author. Of course William Faulkner couldn’t do that on his own. If we think a literary drunk like Faulkner could do it, why can’t wise old St. John?

So until you give yourself some credibility for you claims, I don’t see why we should think that anyone should wonder if revelation did not close with the death of the last apostle.

 

[simspt]

[oooops]ooopps

 

[davidv]

It is commonly said that the Canon of Scripture closed with the death of the last Apostle, John the Gospel writer. However, this is most likely not true.

Are you confusing the end of public revelation of Christ with the canonization of Scripture?

The Gospel of John was apparently edited and completed (with some additions) by a group of other persons, termed John’s disciples. These were probably NOT a discrete group who followed John and each knew him personally (like the Twelve). They were a loose-knit group, some of whom may have known John personally, some many have heard him speak but never really met him, some may have only known of his teachings second hand. It is unlikely that such a group would have edited and added to the work of John while he was still alive. So this work of completing the Gospel was done after his death. The same group may also have completed the Book of Revelation (in my theory).

The Gospel of Mark has an ending that may not have been the work of Mark, but was added to Mark’s Gospel at a later date. This addition could have occurred after Mark’s death; we are not certain of the date of this passage (16:9-20). It may even have been added after the death of the last Apostle.

The letters of John were possibly not written by John the Gospel writer, but by John the Elder. The style and language of the letters is of someone who has learned from John’s Gospel, but who expresses that understanding in his own manner. These letters also may have been written after the death of John the Gospel writer.

So it is not clear when the Canon of Scripture was closed, i.e. when the NT was completed. But there is substantial evidence weighing against the idea that the death of John the Apostle was when the Canon closed. And since he died late in the first century A.D., it is possible that the Canon was closed sometime in the second century.

And even if we suppose John’s work of Revelation to be the last book of the NT to be written, once he completed it, then Canon would be closed then, and not later on, whenever he died.

All scripture was inspired at the time of its writing, whether in 40 AD or 140AD. The (name removed by moderator)ired authors did not need to be one of the 12. The same Spirit that inspired the writers, inspired the bishops of the Church to identify and select the inspired writings from all of the candidates offered for consideration. The timeline of this selection process has been presented by other posters.

 

[Salvatore123]

If I may add my humble (name removed by moderator)ut.

As an attorney who practices civil law in Louisiana (the only European continent-based jurisdiction in the entire US) and who has studied Canon Law, I am, of course, going to approach this from a lawyer standpoint.

With no offense intended for the original poster, I think the framing of the question is not precise. Stated another way, the question can be read as asking for more than one answer.

IF the OP is asking when was the latest-written NT book that was later infallibly recognized by the Catholic Church as part of the NT canon, then the answer is:** that is open to debate**.

For years, most scripture scholars thought that St. John, while on the Isle of Patmos, actually wrote the last book of the NT, LAST, sometime around 90AD. As pointed out by previous posts to this thread, modern scholarship seems to have cast doubt on that. And as the Catholic Church has NEVER infallibly proclaimed WHEN the NT books were written (which I do not think needs an infallible declaration), then I respectfully submit that the answer to THIS question, as phrased above, is: we don’t know.

But, IF the OP is asking: When did the Catholic Church infallibly declare, for the FIRST TIME, that the NT canon was closed and that only the 27 NT books we now have, completes the entire NT, then the answer is at the Council of Trent.

Remember that Pope Damasus I instructed St. Jerome to produce a Latin-based revision of the entire bible, because of the pretty poor condition of the then-existing Latin translations floating around (yes, Latin texts of the Bible did exist BEFORE St. Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate recognized as the Church’s official text by the Catholic Church until 1979/1986). Damasus’s goal was to coordinate the production of a Latin bible produced by one person that could be recognized as “official” by the Church. St. Jerome, for the most part, complied with his mandate in that he did adhere to it while producing the NT, but significantly deviated from his mandate while producing the OT (he personally thought the deuterocanonical books should NOT have been included, but they were; and he relied on many ancient Hebrew texts instead of looking to the Septuagint, which was the actual OT quoted by everyone, including Christ himself, when referring to the OT).

As one poster correctly pointed out above, although Damasus’s decision about his listing of the books of the bible (both OT and NT) was the one adopted by Trent, Trent is the first time that an infallible declaration was made.

If the Catholic Church had already made such an infallible declaration before Trent, I do not believe it would have done so again. In fact, and I may be wrong in saying this, I am not aware of any infallible dogma (that may be redundant - I don’t think one can have a dogma of the Church that is not infallible) that was proclaimed as infallible on more than one occasion. I realize the Church has REFERRED to previously infallible declarations in subsequent ex catedra statements, but I do not believe the Church has outright made an ex cathedra statement on a particular matter, and then later made the same ex cathedra statement on that same matter, without also referring to the first declaration.

Caveat: I mentioned the dates 1979/1986, as the Catholic Church now refers to its “official” text of the Bible as the Nova Vulgata. However, I have not yet been able to find an ex cathedra pronouncement that the Nova Vulgata is deemed to be the new, official text of the Bible used by the Catholic Church. And this brings up an interesting point. As Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate produced by St. Jerome was THE Bible that should be recognized as one that is infallible in all ways and that should be considered the official text of the Bible, I am not sure that a later council or statement can “replace” a previous statement with respect to a newer text.

That is the “danger” that people do not realize when they shout for “ex cathedra” statements on issue X or issue Y or issue Z. The Church needs to be absolutely certain that what it is proclaiming as infallible, IS, in fact, INFALLIBLE. Because to do so, the Church cannot come back later and just “replace” a previously-made infallible statement. It simply does not work that way.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Council of Florence declared the Canon of Scripture infallibly, prior to the Council of Trent.

However, my original question was about when the Canon closed, not when the Church infallibly taught which books are in the Canon. This question is not as simple as asking when the last book was written because a book may have been added to, or substantially edited, under inspiration, after it was initially written.

I realize that there is no definitive answer to this question. That is why I raised it as a topic of discussion.

There is one theory that Mark did not write the ending to his Gospel, verses 9 to 20. However, if so, this does not imply that those verses are not inspired or not canonical. It is not unusual for more than one person to have worked on a book of the Bible. For example, additions were made to Esther and Daniel at a later date, in a different language (Greek and Aramaic). Also, it is clear from the modern analysis of Genesis that at least several, perhaps many, authors worked on that book. And the same is certainly true of the Psalms, which are Davidic in their inception, but numerous person contributed, all under inspiration.

John’s Gospel has the story of the woman caught in adultery, which has a different style of writing that much of the rest of the Gospel. This led scholars to propose that it was written at a later date, by someone other than John. Then there is the ending to John:

{21:24} This is the same disciple who offers testimony about these things, and who has written these things. And we know that his testimony is true.
{21:25} Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.

John is spoken of in the third person; the persons so speaking refer to themselves as ‘we’. These are the persons who are thought by scholars to have completed John’s Gospel, perhaps editing it in a number of ways. They are probably the ones who changed reference to John himself to read the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The authorship of John’s letters has always been an open question, even among the early Church fathers. So they may have been written later than the Book of Revelation.