Nineveh
Merely Christian
Berean Todd said:Ok, there have been several threads calling into question the New Testament, particularly in how we got it, and where it came from, including suggestions of much late handiwork by men. As such, and prompted by others, I thought it would be a benefit to consider how we got the New Testament, both in it's formation, it's collection, and it's official cannonization.
So, is it true that the Bible was not collected until the late fourth century? Is it true that the church of the late fourth century at the Council of Carthage (397) randomly, for their own purpose decided what should be scripture and what should not? I submit that they did not. There is ample support and evidence for what should be Scripture prior to that. The Council was just solidifying into doctrine what was allready known and observed in practice. What then are earlier evidences of the Scriptures?
I. Early Church Fathers
The Ante-Nicean Fathers, as they are also known, being the leaders of the church prior to the Council of Nicea, date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These men began with those who were directly trained by the apostles themselves, and all the way up to those early church councils.
Now, these men had this terrible habbit it seems. You see, they valued the apostle's writtings, and they recorded them, quoted them, and commented on them. So, let us consider some of the evidence of this period.
For instance, in the epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians (writting around AD 100), Polycarp quoted no non-Biblical gospels or letters, but did quote extensively from not only Paul's epistle to the Phillipians, but also from 10 other of Paul's letters, indicating an early collection of Paul's writtings was allready circulating by that time.
In 95 AD Clement of Rome wrote a letter in the name of the Christians of Rome to those in Corinth. In this letter he quotes and cites Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, Romans, Corinthians, and shows familiarity with and evidence of, though not direct quotes from, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians.In 130 AD the epistle of Barnabas is written, and it uses the term "it is written" (used in the NT to quote OT Scripture) of quotations from the Gospel of Matthew.
Now those are just a smattering of direct examples I will give, let me give a more broad look at it then. Let me name for you just 17 of the ECFs (early church fathers): Pseudo-Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Didache, Pappias, Iranaeus, Dionetus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine.
All of these men quoted extensively from the books of the NT. I will give three figures for each book of the New Testament. First the number of these 17 men who quoted from them as Scripture. Included in this will be the number who did not. Lastly, the numbers (if any) who claimed they did not belong with Scripture.
Matthew 14 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Mark 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Luke 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
John 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Acts 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Romans 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
1 Cor 13 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
2 Cor 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Galatians 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Ephesians 13 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Phillipians 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Colosians 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
1 Thess 13 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
2 Thess 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
1 Timothy 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
2 Timothy 9 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Titus 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Philemon 5 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
Hebrews 10 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, one (Origen) claims it is disputed as to wether it is scripture
James 5 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, one (Eusebius) claims it is disputed as to wether it is scripture
1 Peter 12 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
2 Peter 6 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, two (Origen, Eusebius) claim it as disputed
1 John 10 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
2 John 6 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, two (Origen, Eusebius) claim it as disputed
3 John 3 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, two (Origen, Eusebius) claim it as disputed
Jude 7 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, one (Eusebius) claims it as disputed
Revelation 11 of 17 cite/quote as scripture, no claims to the contrary
First off, notice a couple of things. One, almost none of these people were trying to create a complete list of what constituted the New Testament, they did not see the need for that, at least not early on. Also, notice the only ones who people claimed to be disputed were always disputed by only two men, Origen and Eusebius.
Of these men, 6 of them quoted/cited almost every single one of the 27 NT books as Scripture, and and two of them did cite every one, and one of them cited every one of the books except Revelation.
II. Early "canons"
Marcion canon (140 AD) Now, Marcion was a heretecal gnostic, but he did at least cite Luke and 10 of Pauls' letters as being cannonical Scripture.
Muratorian Canon (170 AD) had all the NT listed as canonical, except Hebrews, James, 1 Pet, 2 Pet. However, there is a break in the manuscript for this, so the non-listed books may have been listed but lost because of the poor condition of that part of the manuscript.
Old Latin version (200 AD) had all the NT except for 2 Peter, James and Hebrews.
Barococcio Canon (206 AD) had every book of the NT except for Revelation.
Apostolic Canon (300 AD) had every book of the NT except for Revelation.
Chelenthem Canon (360 AD) had every book of the NT except for Hebrews, James + Jude, and speciafically claimed 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John were not scripture
Athanaseus Canon (367 AD) listed every book of the NT.
III. Councils
The councils began really with the Council of Nicea as the first real major church council. They did not directly take up the subject of the cannon, but they did claim cannonicity of all of the NT except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude.
The councils that really dealt with canonicity of the books were Hippo (393) Carthage I (397) and Carthage II (419), of which Carthage I was the most important with respect to this question. All three of these councils agreed on all 27 books of the NT.
IV. What does this all mean?
The early church, especially of the apostles, was not interested in immediately collecting a book of all the important writtings or Scriptures (though the NT books themselves at times cite one another as Scripture). They believed that Jesus was coming back very soon and there was no need. As it became apparent that we do not know His timing or His plans, the collection of this material became more and more precious.
What makes something scripture? Well, it had to have authority, such as being written by an apostle, or a direct student of an apostle (such as Mark or Luke). It had to be unique and show inspiration. It had to have been accepted by the ECFs and not a late entry to the game like the gnostic writtings. These are all among the tests used.
Ultimately one would say, from an Orthodox position, that God created Scripture, man just discovered what He had allready ordained would be our canon. That is not to ignore the fact that humans had their hand in shaping the course of the councils, but if God exists, then He is able to work through us to bring about just that result that He wants.
What cannot be questioned is that there is no doubt at any point on any of the four Gospels, Acts, the 13 epistles of Paul 1 Peter, 1 John. The only books that were in dispute at all were James, Jude, 2 + 3 John, 2 Peter. Revelation is inbetween the two categories in that none claimed it to be a disputed text, but there was some debate over its' inclusion in the Bible.
Ultimately though it comes down to a certain extent to a matter of faith. The NT and it's transmission is not going to win any souls to Christ. Only God's Holy Spirit can do that. But for any Christians out there who have had doubts cast on them, let me say, you can trust the word of God, in it's transmission, it's inspiration, it's message, it's completeness.
cite
Thanks
