Why wasn't the New Testament Canon compiled in 95AD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NotWorthy

Guest
If the Church that Jesus built was to use the Bible to teach all Truths, and assuming that St. John the Apostle wrote Revelation in 94AD (the date isn’t important), then why wasn’t there an inspiration from the Holy Spirit to put together the books of the New Testament and proceed to spread the Gospel to all the nations preaching the Word in print?

This thread is directed to our Christian brothers and sisters that claim that All Scripture is inspired by God and is sufficient to make a man complete (paraphrasing some interpretations of 1st Timothy 3:16).

It seems that, if this was the way the Church was to teach, then first priority of the Church should have been to put all these books together. Instead, the Church waited some 300 years (give or take a few) later to finally consolidate the Canon. Yes, there were opinions to the NT Canon prior to that. But that’s just what they were… opinions.
 
Since I’m not a Bible scholar, I’ll give my answer just as a lay person.

First the printing press didn’t appear right away. Second, the Church taught by word of mouth…in other words, not everything was written down for all to read. Not like today, people can buy a Bible and read it. Back then many people couldn’t read.

I know some people today who still can’t read or write, yet these same people do know the word of God, how could that be if not for the Church “teaching them by verbal words”, just like in the days during Jesus time.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in His time frame not ours. So therefore I truely believe it was all put together when God thought the time was right. I don’t question it, I just have faith that God knows better than us what we need and when we need it.

Hope this helps.
 
If the Church that Jesus built was to use the Bible to teach all Truths, and assuming that St. John the Apostle wrote Revelation in 94AD (the date isn’t important), then why wasn’t there an inspiration from the Holy Spirit to put together the books of the New Testament and proceed to spread the Gospel to all the nations preaching the Word in print?

This thread is directed to our Christian brothers and sisters that claim that All Scripture is inspired by God and is sufficient to make a man complete (paraphrasing some interpretations of 1st Timothy 3:16).

It seems that, if this was the way the Church was to teach, then first priority of the Church should have been to put all these books together. Instead, the Church waited some 300 years (give or take a few) later to finally consolidate the Canon. Yes, there were opinions to the NT Canon prior to that. But that’s just what they were… opinions.
Before the printing press, copying books was done by hand. It was a long, arduous and expensive task.

check my posts in this thread for how the bible was created:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=327755
 
Well for starters there were was ongoing dispute as to which books were Inspired and which weren’t and the Holy Spirit works through history not in one particular moment.

Divine Revelation consists of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Christ never commanded his Apostles to write a Book, he commanded them to preach and part of that preaching consisted of the writing of the NT. The NT consisted of a collection of books written from by the Evangelists and the Apostles, some of those books were known as being inspired, others weren’t. It was only until the Church guided by The Holy Spirit and Tradition that she was able to compile not just the NT but the OT as well. Thus the Canon was officialy closed in the Council of Trent, although the Council raitfied what many previous Councils had included in the Canon.
 
Melito had a cannon of the Jewish books of the Old Testament around 170AD. From Melito’s work, he called the Jewish books the OLD TESTAMENT, meaning, that Christians of an early time period had an understanding that the writings of the apostles and Paul were a new testament, like writings from new prophets as the old testament had prophets that wrote sacred writings, etc.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with** the wisdom that God gave him**. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul’s writings which started being written 10 to 30 years before 2 Peter was written are considered SCRIPTURE by Peter. We can only assume the Scripture Peter was talking about was Old Testament writings, possibly he was referring to the Gospels.

The Muratorian Canon list from between 120AD-170AD had almost the entire new testament listed and said that these books listed were being read out loud in all the churches.
 
THE MURATORIAN CANON

The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation.

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, ‘Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ [5] Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence — (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] [5a] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, [6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). [6a] It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, [6b] and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . .
 
Melito had a cannon of the Jewish books of the Old Testament around 170AD. From Melito’s work, he called the Jewish books the OLD TESTAMENT, meaning, that Christians of an early time period had an understanding that the writings of the apostles and Paul were a new testament, like writings from new prophets as the old testament had prophets that wrote sacred writings, etc.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with** the wisdom that God gave him**. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul’s writings which started being written 10 to 30 years before 2 Peter was written are considered SCRIPTURE by Peter. We can only assume the Scripture Peter was talking about was Old Testament writings, possibly he was referring to the Gospels.

The Muratorian Canon list from between 120AD-170AD had almost the entire new testament listed and said that these books listed were being read out loud in all the churches.
But, my point is (and as usual, I’m not good at conveying it…), if the Bible is all that’s necessary to make the man complete, shouldn’t the Canon have been revealed immediately after Revelation was written?

You see, the Corinthian Church thought that St. Clement, 4th Bishop of Rome’s Epistle to them was Scriptural. They read it in their Churches for up to 100 years as Scripture (along with St. Paul’s letters as well). The Shepherd of Hermas was thought to be Scriptural and was widely read. So were several others.

But that fact that the Church waited so long before adopting a Canon ought to tell you that the Church didn’t feel that Scripture was all that was necessary to make the man complete.
 
The Church came first. The Scriptures came from the Church.

From the late 1st century to the early 4th century, the Church underwent at least 10 waves of major persecutions in various parts of the Roman Empire. Many local congregations during this time frame had different understandings of what constituted Sacred Scripture. Not all congregations necessarily had the same texts.

The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, I Peter and I John were widely accepted very early on. At the time Eusebius wrote his “History” (around AD 325), Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation were still disputed in many Christian communities for a variety of reasons. By the end of the 4th/beginning of the 5th century, the “final assembly” process was completed.

Blessings,
 
I think you have asked a very good question, though I suspect you would get a broader response from non-catholics if you posted this in the non-catholic religions forum.

I will just add that one of the reasons that no NT canon was assembled that early was that most those Early Christians expected Christ to return within their lifetimes. That is within a generation or two. Thus there was not seen to be a great need for an “official canon” when the King would be returning any day.

Peace
James
 
I think you have asked a very good question, though I suspect you would get a broader response from non-catholics if you posted this in the non-catholic religions forum.
Yes, it seems that maybe I should have posted it there. I don’t hang out on those forums much, though. I never even thought about it, to be honest.
I will just add that one of the reasons that no NT canon was assembled that early was that most those Early Christians expected Christ to return within their lifetimes. That is within a generation or two. Thus there was not seen to be a great need for an “official canon” when the King would be returning any day.

Peace
James
I see this among the Thessalonians, but St. Paul admittedly didn’t get to spend an extended period of time in Thesalonica, thus allowing faulty theology such as this to creep in.

But is that indicative of the rest of the early Church, or just the exception? I don’t know myself, which is why I’m asking.
 
Yes, it seems that maybe I should have posted it there. I don’t hang out on those forums much, though. I never even thought about it, to be honest.

I see this among the Thessalonians, but St. Paul admittedly didn’t get to spend an extended period of time in Thesalonica, thus allowing faulty theology such as this to creep in.

But is that indicative of the rest of the early Church, or just the exception? I don’t know myself, which is why I’m asking.
I can’t really say for sure, it has been my understanding that it was a fairly widely held belief. After All Jesus told them to “Be Watchful”, “You do not know the hour” and the “Kingdom is at Hand”, - things of that nature.

Peace
James
 
I can’t really say for sure, it has been my understanding that it was a fairly widely held belief. After All Jesus told them to “Be Watchful”, “You do not know the hour” and the “Kingdom is at Hand”, - things of that nature.

Peace
James
Yes, but Jesus hadn’t left them when he said that. They could hardly be waiting for His next coming!
 
Yes, but Jesus hadn’t left them when he said that. They could hardly be waiting for His next coming!
I’m terrible at Chapter and verse, but didn’t He say, right before He left them, that “I must Leave you for a little while. For a while you won’t see me bu the you will see me.”

That isn’t exactly right but it is something like that. I’ll try looking it up later. to get it right.

Peace
James
 
I’m terrible at Chapter and verse, but didn’t He say, right before He left them, that “I must Leave you for a little while. For a while you won’t see me bu the you will see me.”

That isn’t exactly right but it is something like that. I’ll try looking it up later. to get it right.

Peace
James
Yes, it’s around John 15 & 16. But the resolution to that was, He left them when He died and then they did see Him again after the Resurrection.
 
Could it just be that the Holy Spirit was leading the Church into all truth - truth which may have been revealed but not fully understood or comprehended until later? There was also a deuterocanon of he New Testament (newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm) , since several NT books were later argued over and examined as to worthiness (to coin a phrase…) for inclusion. A side point to ponder is that, while non-Cs accept the NT deuterocanon, they reject the OT deuterocanon - though both were assembled by the same Church authority. Hmmmm…

One also wonders, but not seriously, why Christ did not command the writing of revealed truth to His Apostles, then simply send them forth to read it to the masses. Or, is it because He knew that there were certain bits of knowledge yet to be gained by man (existence of the female ovum as regards the point of conception, ability to clone, stem cell research, etc.) which would require authoritative moral teaching? It turns out that, fallible men, lead by the Holy Spirit into infallible teaching, was the way to go.
 
If the Church that Jesus built was to use the Bible to teach all Truths, and assuming that St. John the Apostle wrote Revelation in 94AD (the date isn’t important), then why wasn’t there an inspiration from the Holy Spirit to put together the books of the New Testament and proceed to spread the Gospel to all the nations preaching the Word in print?

This thread is directed to our Christian brothers and sisters that claim that All Scripture is inspired by God and is sufficient to make a man complete (paraphrasing some interpretations of 1st Timothy 3:16).

It seems that, if this was the way the Church was to teach, then first priority of the Church should have been to put all these books together. Instead, the Church waited some 300 years (give or take a few) later to finally consolidate the Canon. Yes, there were opinions to the NT Canon prior to that. But that’s just what they were… opinions.
It’s a wonderful question.

Ecc. 3: 1 “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. 9 **What gain has the worker from his toil?” **

Isaiah 55: 6 “Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

So friend,explain to me the Blessed Trinity and I’ll dig futher to respond to your VG question
😃

Love and prayers,
 
Somebody tell me if I’m wrong, but the Canon was determined by the Church. A book had to pass a test to become part of the Bible (figuratively, not a literal test) and that test was conforming to the orthodoxy of the Church. To me, that is irrefutable proof of the inaneness of sola scriptura.

jk
 
The thing that folks here aren’t seeing is that books, while useful, were not regarded as more trustworthy or more important than live oratory or a tradition held in memory.

It was more important for Roman politicians to make great speeches in a great performance than anything else. (This was called rhetoric, and you spent tons of time learning how to be an orator in any good school. Only a good public speaker could be expected to achieve any high position in politics.) Secondary importance was given to catchy phrases and good points that would stay in the memory. Actually reading transcripts of their speeches – that was way down there. Sorta like reading Cliff Notes – something you used for study, but obviously not the thing itself.

Philosophers gained their fame by public argument and good teaching of their disciples. Many wrote books or had their disciples write down memories of their teachings, but if you really wanted to learn what a dead philosopher had taught, you went and studied under someone who’d studied under him, or at the school he had founded. Books were just an intro to their way of thought, or a way to hold arguments with other philosophers who lived too far for convenient travel. Rabbis felt similarly, and that’s why it was so important to be able to say, “I studied under Gamaliel” or whoever.

There were gazillions of prophets in Israel down the years. The vast majority of them did not write down their prophecies at all, and nobody thought that strange. The ones who did, seem to have been writing some sort of poetic rendition of the sorts of things they usually preached. But apparently they preached a lot more stuff than they were ever inspired to write down.

We are programmed to think of books as something solid and trustworthy. The ancient world trusted eyewitnesses first, and witnesses of witnesses next. Books were way back there (unless you’re talking the OT or the prophetic books of the Sibyls). That’s why Papias and Hegesippus went to so much trouble to collect stuff that Jesus and the apostles said, according to eyewitnesses, but which weren’t in what Justin Martyr called “the memoirs of the apostles”. The various books that early Christians read in the churches (as a supplement to what they considered Scripture, namely the OT) were just considered by them as the interesting, edifying Christian bestsellers of the day! Good stuff, of course, was in the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Paul and Barnabas, and the memoirs of Luke and Matthew and so forth. But what was the inspired Word of God was the teachings, received from trustworthy teachers of Jesus’ school.

It was a big leap for the Church to decide that certain contemporary bestsellers of the previous generations were actually just as inspired as the OT. A very big leap. No wonder opinions were so scattered and consensus so slow.
 
If the Church that Jesus built was to use the Bible to teach all Truths, and assuming that St. John the Apostle wrote Revelation in 94AD (the date isn’t important), then why wasn’t there an inspiration from the Holy Spirit to put together the books of the New Testament and proceed to spread the Gospel to all the nations preaching the Word in print?

This thread is directed to our Christian brothers and sisters that claim that All Scripture is inspired by God and is sufficient to make a man complete (paraphrasing some interpretations of 1st Timothy 3:16).

It seems that, if this was the way the Church was to teach, then first priority of the Church should have been to put all these books together. Instead, the Church waited some 300 years (give or take a few) later to finally consolidate the Canon. Yes, there were opinions to the NT Canon prior to that. But that’s just what they were… opinions.
The Church was too busy undergoing a rather severe persecution at the time.

Gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top