No other books follow

[Texasgirl]

I don't think the word 'establishing' is appropriate, by way of suggesting an act of the church, whereby one day some books supposedly became the Word of God.

Rather, if the Word of God was there in its completeness, the church basically recognized what was already there, what was already authoritative.

Tertullian wrote helpfully about this. He refered to the canon of Scripture as the 'instrumentum', the instrument by which the church defined itself, rather than the other way round.

"Establishing" the canon is simply recognizing what is Scripture.

I agree that they did not become Scripture by an act of the church. But they were recognized as Scripture by an act of the church (and likewise other books were recognized as not being Scripture). And without the recognition of what is (and is not) Scripture, how do we really possess Scripture?

Source for the Tertullian quote please? The church defines itself by its head, Jesus Christ. And since the church existed at least since Pentecost (prior to any NT Scriptures being authored), I find it difficult to conclude that the church defined itself by what was not yet in existence.

 

[farouk]

"Establishing" the canon is simply recognizing what is Scripture.

I agree that they did not become Scripture by an act of the church. But they were recognized as Scripture by an act of the church (and likewise other books were recognized as not being Scripture). And without the recognition of what is (and is not) Scripture, how do we really possess Scripture?

Source for the Tertullian quote please? The church defines itself by its head, Jesus Christ. And since the church existed at least since Pentecost (prior to any NT Scriptures being authored), I find it difficult to conclude that the church defined itself by what was not yet in existence.

Tg:

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library (on the Web) has quite a bit of Tertullian's works, as relevant to the canon.

There is also the question of the Authority of an apostle (apart from Acts, which is the Acts of the Apostles anyway).

 

[Texasgirl]

Tg:

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library (on the Web) has quite a bit of Tertullian's works, as relevant to the canon.

There is also the question of the Authority of an apostle (apart from Acts, which is the Acts of the Apostles anyway).

I have a database of the ECF -- the issue is finding the particular reference you cite as it did not come up in what I thought was an appropriate search. And not going to read all of Tertullian to find it! My assumption was you could point me to the specific document.

In addition, Tertullian has far from an accurate canon, books missing, others added. So if the church at his time was defined by Scripture it was defined inaccurately, because he didn't have an accurate view of what Scripture was (per what we accept as Scripture today).

Not sure about your 'question' about the authority of an apostle and what you're getting at with that -- could you explain?

 

[farouk]

Tg;

I have been trying to be helpful to you, so sorry if I seemed otherwise to you.

The question of authorship of a New Testament book is generally helpful, too; this is what I meant as a general point.

 

[farouk]

PS: Tg: I'm not sure what your starting point is; the authority of the church? supposedly. (Sorry; I don't understand your point.)

 

[Texasgirl]

Tg;

I have been trying to be helpful to you, so sorry if I seemed otherwise to you.

The question of authorship of a New Testament book is generally helpful, too; this is what I meant as a general point.

Farouk, I do appreciate your trying! And I'm sorry if I do not seem so.

I simply linked to this thread from another, and found the statement that 'all' of the NT books were deemed as Scripture at the time they were written and that the canon existed 300 years before Carthage and Hippo and I was interested in any source information that could back that up. Everything I have ever seen shows consistency on most books early on but about a half dozen or so that come into play much later, and extra ones in play until much later as well.

Anyway, thanks for your time!

 

[Texasgirl]

PS: Tg: I'm not sure what your starting point is; the authority of the church? supposedly. (Sorry; I don't understand your point.)

I certainly believe based upon the history of the development of the canon that it is impossible to dismiss the role the church plays in definitively recognizing what is, and is not Scripture.

You mention 'authorship' in your previous post. So, for example, the book of Hebrews which claims no author. By what means do you recognize that book as having apostolic authorship?

But my point was (as I said in my last post) to see if there was something I had missed in my studies that supported the statement made. Simply that.

 

[farouk]

Tg: Fine, okay. Another book that might be helpful (and I don't have it in front of me) is BB Warfield's 'Inspiration and Authority of the Bible'.

 

[farouk]

Re. Hebrews, the witness of content counts for more, rather than supplying a definite author.

As a dispensationalist and separatist (I can give Scriptures for these, but won't detain you now) I have great difficulty with the idea of a church structure overseeing the text of Scripture and deciding what to 'put' in the canon, supposedly.

In fact, I don't see any structure between the local church and the universal, spiritual body of Christ.

 

[Texasgirl]

Re. Hebrews, the witness of content counts for more, rather than supplying a definite author.

As a dispensationalist and separatist (I can give Scriptures for these, but won't detain you now) I have great difficulty with the idea of a church structure overseeing the text of Scripture and deciding what to 'put' in the canon, supposedly.

In fact, I don't see any structure between the local church and the universal, spiritual body of Christ.

I always welcome Scriptures.

The book of Hebrews was debated for inclusion into the canon but I believe the debate was over authorship, not content. Augustine and Jerome were instrumental in affirming the authorship of Paul and hence the book was ultimately included.

I would contend that in Scripture the apostles most definitely are the 'structure' between the local church and the universal, and visible body of Christ. They are quite visible as leaders of the universal church in Acts 15 for example, and decide for all the churches a particular matter of faith.

I understand the difficulty for you with attributing such a role to the church as establishing the canon of Scripture. I just have difficulty comprehending how one with your position deals with the gradual emergence of an accepted canon over the course of 300 years, and how that occurs absent any involvement of church leadership.

 

[Free]

And some books that were included were under much debate as well (Revelation and Hebrews are two I recall).

Yes. There were a few that we currently have that were debated.

It is not to be taken lightly. I simply would like to know the source for the statement that at the time of its writing, each NT book was accepted by the church and the canon was in place 300 years before those councils. I agree with you that many book were never in dispute and accepted from the beginning. That is not the same as 'all' being immediately accepted.

I don't think this is exactly what Nathan was saying:

"2) Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD."

He does not say anything about the canon being in place 300 years before the Council of Carthage, nor that all the books were immediately accepted. All he says is that each book had been accepted as Scripture. And this was one of the criteria used to determine which books to include in canon. It doesn't mean that every book was accepted by everyone but likely that a large portion or majority of the Church accepted them.

And the Muratorian fragment lists a canon that is incomplete missing Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John, and it includes the Revelation of Peter and the Book of Wisdom from the OT. So I'm not sure how you see that as being a defining moment in establishing the actual canon?

It is a defining moment because it is the fist canonical list and although it doesn't contain all the books we have now, and it need not, and contains some others we don't have now, it still contains many we do have. This was likely in response to Marcion's Canon. This is what began the process of canonization, of determining orthodoxy over against heresy.

We have to remember that these were just men wrestling with these books and seeking God's guidance. This was a long process and it is not necessary that the first canonical list was complete as we have it now and it was immediately accepted by all. It is a good thing that this process was two hundred years long and many godly men were involved in what books to consider.

 

[Texasgirl]

Yes. There were a few that we currently have that were debated.


I don't think this is exactly what Nathan was saying:

"2) Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD."

He does not say anything about the canon being in place 300 years before the Council of Carthage, nor that all the books were immediately accepted. All he says is that each book had been accepted as Scripture. And this was one of the criteria used to determine which books to include in canon. It doesn't mean that every book was accepted by everyone but likely that a large portion or majority of the Church accepted them.


It is a defining moment because it is the fist canonical list and although it doesn't contain all the books we have now, and it need not, and contains some others we don't have now, it still contains many we do have. This was likely in response to Marcion's Canon. This is what began the process of canonization, of determining orthodoxy over against heresy.

We have to remember that these were just men wrestling with these books and seeking God's guidance. This was a long process and it is not necessary that the first canonical list was complete as we have it now and it was immediately accepted by all. It is a good thing that this process was two hundred years long and many godly men were involved in what books to consider.

Thank you free, perhaps I did misunderstand the statement made.

Can't say I disagree with anything you've written here. It was indeed a long process undertaken by Godly men and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ExtraMedium]

tg: Actually, fulness of revelation could be described as perfect in the Biblical sense of completeness.

It is actually a widely held viewpoint.

I think that is one of the biggest vulnerabilities of the church, all these "widely held viewpoints". Just like 600 years ago it was a "widely held viewpoint" that the earth was flat. Anytime I read where someone quotes the bible and says, "this means..." they interject a common Christian viewpoint, which is merely a human interpretation fit into what they want it to say.

Another issue I debate is when the canonized bible was created via: "Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing..." Well, who are these people who have "accepted it"? And what if they rejected writings which might have been true, but offered a different viewpoint? Not that I'm a gnostic, but I feel they something true that can be added, then it should be included. Just because it doesn't fit a specific "mold" for what they want Jesus to represent, doesn't mean it's true.

It's like someone in 50 years writing a biography of President Clinton. Maybe a group of people interested in this all write their own biographies of Clinton because they remember when he was president and thought he was great. They talk all about his great triumphs and how he changed modern world. Now they exclude the part of his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, and maybe other dirt people have found because they don't want people in the future to know about that stuff, just about what they want. And then someone writes a biography which documents his dirty life, and they rebuke it saying "its not consistent with how President Clinton is portrayed... " Then that is a gnostic gospel of Clinton, but nonetheless true.