The New Testament canon of the "apostate" Church

[historia]

From an earlier thread:

The only thing to do today is to return to the source of divine knowledge that we have: the written Word of Him

But who decides what constitutes "the written Word of Him"?

Many of the texts being quoted in this thread, including Revelation, 2 Peter, and the Pastorals, were not universally accepted as authoritative in the early Christian community. And there were many other texts that were ultimately excluded from the New Testament cannon too.

And so, if the early Christian community quickly fell into apostasy, to the point of becoming "unrecognizable," as several here are claiming, why are you all quoting from the books (and only those books) that were chosen by that supposedly apostate Church? Why do you submit to their New Testament canon?

Question for debate:

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim the early Church fell into apostasy, nevertheless accept the New Testament canon that was ultimately set by that same "apostate" Church?

[Eloi]

What makes you think that "the New Testament canon ... was ultimately set by" the "apostate" church?

Consider the following:

after the apostle John's writings, many others were written by people more committed to the new religious institution, even many years before the new religious leaders considered gathering the collection of inspired writings into a single volume. However, none of those writings were considered part of the inspired Christian canon. Why do you think it was like this?

[Eloi]

Consider also these points:

By the year 65, the vast majority of the books that we consider to be part of the New Testament canon had already been written, with the sole exception of those that the apostle John would write more than 30 years later ... So practically the entire NT had already been written, apart from those 5 writings of John that are also part of the NT.

Think about the answer you would give to these questions:

1) Do you think that by the year 65 the conditions for the identification of the books inspired by God, "worthy of being used as a straightedge in measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct", were already in place?

2) Could we consider that the biblical canon was already identified for the most part? How could that canon be identified, or at least the writings that would be part of the entire volume?

3) Who could "ultimately" decide those components, and how would he/they do that?

[historia]

What makes you think that "the New Testament canon ... was ultimately set by" the "apostate" church?

The New Testament canon was ultimately set in the late 4th and early 5th Century.

In my previous discussion with JehovahsWitness, he agreed that the Council of Nicaea in 325 was a rough date by which we could say the early Church was mostly "apostate."

So, according to that point of view, the New Testament canon was ultimately set by the "apostate" churches.

If you don't think the late 4th or early 5th Century Church was apostate, I'm happy to hear an alternative view.

[A]fter the apostle John's writings, many others were written by people more committed to the new religious institution, even many years before the new religious leaders considered gathering the collection of inspired writings into a single volume.

I'm not sure why you think 2nd Century Christian authors were "more committed to the new religious institution," but it is certainly the case that Christians continued to write texts after the Johannine writings were composed.

However, none of those writings were considered part of the inspired Christian canon. Why do you think it was like this?

It wasn't. Several texts written after the Gospel of John were, in fact, considered inspired scripture by many early Church Fathers. That includes the Gospel of the Hebrews, 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, and 2 Peter.

By the year 65, the vast majority of the books that we consider to be part of the New Testament canon had already been written, with the sole exception of those that the apostle John would write more than 30 years later

This premise is extremely dubious. It runs completely contrary to the consensus of modern scholarship, which has concluded that the synoptic gospels, Acts, Hebrews, the Pastorals, and almost all of the Catholic Epistles were most likely written after 65 AD.

Do you think that by the year 65 the conditions for the identification of the books inspired by God, "worthy of being used as a straightedge in measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct", were already in place?

Since the vast majority of the NT books were not likely written before 65 AD, the answer would have to be no.

Could we consider that the biblical canon was already identified for the most part?

Of course not. Putting aside the fact that most of the texts were not even written by 65 AD, had the canon been already identified that early, then we would not see the diversity of opinions about which books were or were not canon in subsequent centuries.

How could that canon be identified, or at least the writings that would be part of the entire volume?

Who could "ultimately" decide those components, and how would he/they do that?

The canon was reached through a long process of consensus building among the orthodox churches.

[Eloi]

Apparently we do not agree on much information related to this matter. Let's establish some definitions first and clarify the "data" you have on this matter:

What do you consider "canon" of the NT?
When was this "canon" established and who made the decisions?
Which books were part of that "canon" and When were those books written?
How was it decided that it would be made up of those books?

[JehovahsWitness]

The evidence indicates that the Christian scriptures where written and fixed as canon well before the church fell under the control of unscrupulous men.

But that's precisely the problem I have with your argument -- it doesn't fully match the historical timeline.

Even if the church had more or less fallen by the 4th century, it only goes to prove even a broken clock it right twice a day; in other words it does not mean every decision it subsequently made had to be wrong

More importantly, no one individual or church council established the canonicity of the bible books, it was done by the first century christian community as authorised collections were made under the approval of the Apostles and early "church fathers". The presently available catalogues merely allow us to go some way to document this process.

NOTE Even If we factor in THE APOSTACY gradually increasing from the end of the first century to the fourth and beyond, we can appreciate the limited significance of the later church councils as regards to the compilation and authentication of already established biblical canon. Such decisions as to the apocrypha/disputed books thus does not throw any supposed timeline of the Apostacy out of sequence. A correct decision and the existence of the Apostacy, are not mutually exclusive. (regarding accepting such conclusions SEE BELOW "Why Peter not Hemas?"

In short, the timeline of the apostacy is not disrupted by the so-called disputed books such as 2 Peter. We do not have to hold the entire body of scripture in doubt it until we have unanamous documented testimony for all of the books is established nor de we have to conclude all the decisions of later councils were necessarily wrong.

COLLECTIONS: Regarding the so-called disputed books, it's understandable if certain letters took longer to circulate or even didn't reach certain parts of the Christian community making available evidence scarce, late or even non-existence in certain areas. This would not be particularly significant as to the progression of the Great Apostacy.

SO WHY PETER NOT HERMAS?

Suffice it that the book(s) (a) were evidently written in the first century [and therefore potentially had apostolic authority] (b) we have external evidence of canonicity [generally circulation being at least a factor to consider ] (c) sufficient internal evidence of authenticity and (d) it harmonises entirely with the (established) canonical writings.

2 Peter meets these demands; the Shepherd of Hermas* for example does not.

[*]SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

- classified by Eusebius as spurious (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius , p. 110)
- The Muratorian fragment classified as noncanonical (The New Testament Documents, G. Milligan, 1913, pages 214, 290, 291)

CONCLUSION Although the existing catalogues indicate there was a measure of doubt as to the authenticity of certain currently accepted books in the Christian bible, a wholistic approach leads many (including Jehovahs Witnesses) to accept the canon is it presently stands regardless of the growing apostacy that became increasingly evident during the fourth century and beyond.




RELATED POSTS


Did the Apostle Peter write the epistles that bear his name ?
viewtopic.php?p=976809#p976809

[historia]

Apparently we do not agree on much information related to this matter.

Indeed.

What do you consider "canon" of the NT?

The New Testament canon consists of those writings that the early orthodox Christian churches authorized for reading during the liturgy.

When was this "canon" established and who made the decisions?

The NT canon evolved over the course of the 2nd through 4th Centuries, before reaching its current form early in the 5th Century. The orthodox churches collectively made this decision.

Which books were part of that "canon"

It depends on which time period we're talking about. Different churches considered different books to be part of the canon throughout the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, before they collectively settled on just the 27 books we know today.

As already mentioned above, the Gospel of the Hebrews, 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were also included in various canonical lists or quoted as authoritative by various Early Church Fathers, showing that at different points they too were considered canonical by at least some early orthodox Christians.

When were those books written?

Here is a good summary for the (current) canonical books, showing the generally agreed upon dates of composition.

The Wikipedia articles for the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas provide useful summaries of their dates. Most likely they are roughly contemporary with, or written soon after, the Johannine literature.

The Apocalypse of Peter is likely a 2nd Century work, like 2 Peter.

How was it decided that it would be made up of those books?

The decision about which books should be included was reached through a long process of consensus building among the orthodox churches.

Hope that helps.

[JehovahsWitness]

The decision about which books should be included was reached through a long process of consensus building among the orthodox churches.

The "orthodox churches" of the fourth and fifth centuries could only decide what they would accept as authoratitive ; I think we can all agree they could not decide what would be accepted by the first and early second century Christian community.

Unless one is to suggest these early Christians has no scripture, it is logical that they looked to their leaders notably the Apostles and leading men of their time, to know what was inspired scripture. As to the question who definitively decided what was to be accepted by Christians ; the Catholic church demonstates that we are not obliged to agree with later decisions if they in any way conflict with the original traditions.

In the absence of arguing there was no scripture, no community and no traditions, logic dictates the original canon was established by that first Christian community as and when christian scripture became available.

If it was finally agreed on collectively by "orthodox churches" it is rather like the whole family attending a Christening: Just because everyone agrees Winston Herbert is a perfectly delightful name for a baby, doesn't mean the parents didn't pick it out . Ultimately there was simply not enough evidence to include the apocrypha, so agreement was just following the dictates that came before; and when you do that you don't lead ... you follow.

[Eloi]

[Replying to historia in post #2]
I can see that your ideas about the "canon" of the NT is subordinate to the Orthodox Church and its decisions around the 5th century.

I'll tell you my point of view:

1) "Canon" is the collection of inspired Scriptures. That makes every single inspired book a part of it, and it means: each inspired book is a canonical book. The qualification as a "canonical book" does not depend on the decision of some person; it depends solely and exclusively on the determination under divine criteria that such a book was really inspired by the holy spirit. That means that ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY by holy spirit can it be determined what that same holy spirit inspired to be collected in a writing to be used as "a measuring rule or standard for determining right faith and doctrine and what is acceptable conduct with God".

2) Notice: since the Orthodox Church did not exist when the inspired books were written and adopted as such, that institution has nothing to do with the "canon" in this sense. The "canon" (and I will exclusively call that what I refer to before) was COMPLETED when the last inspired book was written and began to be read, consulted, used for the strengthening of the teaching received from Jesus, the apostles and the anointed ones at Pentecost (who continued the work after Jesus' death and did not continue to live long after the death of the Apostle John in the late first century).

3) There were no other canonical books after Revelation. That inspired book was written in the late 1st century. By that time existing congregations already had collections of Paul's letters, gospels, and other inspired books that they consulted to learn the original truths taught and recorded (in different styles of writing and types of documents) for nearly 30 years earlier, before the last writings of John.

4) Christian congregations were organized into a "global" congregation. All of them had been supervised by a Governing Body based in Jerusalem and made up of some elders and apostles, as can be verified in the account of Acts 15 and 16. That direction prevented the congregations from considering as "coming from God" any religious writing or "speech" that did not agree with the truths already recorded and taught around the world. Changes were supervised ... and that process stopped only until shortly after the death of the apostle John, who was apparently the last remaining anointed of those authentically recognized as such.

5) Apart from the easy determination of a false teaching during the life of the apostles and first anointed ones, there was a way to determine if a writing or speech was really inspired by God by his spirit. Only a few Christians had been chosen by God to write a book that would result in part of the inspired volume of the NT:

a) two half-brothers of Jesus: James and Jude;
b) three apostles out of the 12: Mateo, Pedro and Juan;
c) two special collaborators who were also Jewish converts to Christianity shortly after Jesus' death: Mark and Luke;
d) Paul, as a special apostle.

As can be seen there is a pattern: all of them were either close to Jesus or joined Christianity shortly after Jesus' death, like Mark and Luke. We also know that Jesus' brothers were unbelievers until his death, but that after the resurrection James became a column of the world congregation and Jude wrote a small letter to Christians. And of Paul we know that he had the vision and conversion of him shortly after 33. There was ABSOLUTELY no other Christian selected by God to record any other inspired book. That "gift" of the holy spirit did not spread to others. However, there was another gift of the holy spirit that contributed to the identification of what was inspired and what was not.

The Orthodox Church, which emerged many years later, never had a part in this process, nor was it the administrator of the gifts of the holy spirit, nor was the institution that emerged shortly after John's death.

1 Cor. 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons. 7 But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. 8 For example, to one there is given through the spirit speech of wisdom, to another speech of knowledge according to the same spirit, 9 to another faith by the same spirit, to another gifts of healings by that one spirit, 10 to yet another operations of powerful works, to another prophesying, to another discernment of inspired utterances, to another different tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues. 11 But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills.

That is the reason why it was IMPOSSIBLE for there to be other inspired writers after the apostasy: the spirit of God no longer bestowed these gifts, as had happened at Pentecost.

As you can see, my point of view is based on biblical facts ... while yours is based on your loyalty to the institution of which you are a part.

[historia]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #6]

Thanks for repeating this response over here, JW.

Even if the church had more or less fallen by the 4th century, it only goes to prove even a broken clock it right twice a day; in other words it does not mean every decision it subsequently made had to be wrong

Fair enough. But we're talking here about seven to ten books that were disputed. That's a lot of decisions to get right when, according to your position, we should view these churches with increased skepticism.

More importantly, no one individual or church council established the canonicity of the bible books, it was done by the first century christian community as authorised collections were made under the approval of the Apostles and early "church fathers". The presently available catalogues merely allow us to go some way to document this process.

I see no reason to believe that the apostles approved authorized collections of New Testament books. As I mentioned above, had that been the case, it would be hard to explain the diversity of opinions we do see among the early Church Fathers in subsequent centuries.

Unfortunately, this source is misleading on a couple of key points.

The Muratorian Canon, for starters, does not mention 2 Peter at all (you can see for yourself, as it's rather short). Likewise, Irenaeus does not quote from or cite 2 Peter.

The 2 Peter column here should match that of James -- i.e., no clear references until Origen in the 3rd Century, as you can see in other charts like this one.

its understandable if certain letters took longer to circulate or even didn't reach certain parts of the Christian community making available evidence scarce, late or even non-existence in certain areas.

And that may well explain the uneven and late acceptance of, for example, Revelation and Hebrews.

But that hypothesis doesn't explain the evidence well for 2 Peter. If it really is a (mid) 1st century text -- presumably written by the apostle himself -- it's hard to explain why it was unacknowledged and un-cited until the 3rd Century. Why didn't it circulate early on together with 1 Peter, in the same way the Pauline epistles circulated together?

SO WHY PETER NOT HERMAS?

Suffice it that the book(s) (a) were evidently written in the first century [and therefore potentially had apostolic authority] (b) we have external evidence of canonicity [generally circulation being at least a factor to consider ] (c) sufficient internal evidence of authenticity and (d) it harmonises entirely with the (established) canonical writings.

2 Peter meets these demands

I have to disagree: (a) the scholarly consensus is that 2 Peter is a 2nd Century text, (b) it achieved canonical status quite late, and (c) even ancient authors (let alone modern ones) recognized the internal evidence points away from Petrine authorship, if that is what you mean by "authenticity."

By comparison, the Shepherd of Hermas has somewhat stronger claims to being a late 1st Century work, was cited as authoritative earlier than 2 Peter, and doesn't really have the same issues regarding authenticity.

CONCLUSION Although the existing catalogues indicate there was a measure of doubt as to the authenticity of certain currently accepted books in the Christian bible, a wholistic approach leads many (including Jehovahs Witnesses) to accept the canon is it presently stands regardless of the growing apostacy that became increasingly evident during the fourth century and beyond.

Sorry, but it seem to me that "wholistic" here just means incorporating the opinions of late 4th Century councils and churches as a way to balance out the doubts of earlier Christian authors. Which is fine, I suppose, but seems odd to me if you think the later churches were increasingly apostate, and that their opinions should be viewed with great suspicion!

If I believed that, and then looked at the evidence for 2 Peter -- where it was apparently unknown (or rejected) by 2nd Century Christians, then doubted by 3rd and early 4th Century Christians, before being fully accepted by late 4th and early 5th Century Christians -- well, that sure looks to me like apostates accepting a spurious book.