JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:09 pm
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.
The first generation of Christians certainly had community and traditions. They also had the Jewish scriptures and other texts they considered to be inspired.
But the suggestion that the first generation of Christians established an official New Testament canon that matches our current 27 books is a
highly controversial claim.
First, there is no evidence of any canonical lists from the 1st Century.
Second, it doesn't appear that the gospels were immediately accepted as scripture due the presence of a strong oral tradition in the early Church. Papias, writing in the early 2nd Century, for example, said that he preferred the oral traditions about Jesus over any written text. And other early 2nd Century Christian authors rarely cite or quote directly from the canonical gospels, instead relying on a broader set of non-canonical sayings. It isn't until Justin Martyr in the late-2nd Century that we see Christian authors relying explicitly on the written gospels.
So, the suggestion that the first generation of Christians
must have created a canon is unfounded. You're assuming that they shared your same concern about quickly creating a canon from newly written Christian texts, when the evidence suggests otherwise.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:09 pm
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.
But this analogy actually highlights the problem with your argument.
When a family attends a Christening, there is usually
no disagreement about the name of the baby, precisely because the parent already picked it out (and likely included it in the invitations).
But when we look at the writings of 2nd Century Christians, we see that there is, in fact, disagreement about what is and what is not scripture. That's a good indication there was no fixed canon in the 1st Century. If there had been, this disagreement likely wouldn't exist.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:55 pm
Your chart is nicely laid out and illustrates well how comparitively weak the apcrypha is in relation to the accepted canon.
But that's only true if we take into account later, supposedly 'apostate' writers.
If we constrain the list to the 2nd Century, things look different:
From this point of view, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John are weaker than 1 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, and especially the Shephard of Hermas.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:55 pm
[M]y point was that even if we presently have no evidence a book was widely circulated, that of itself this would not mean it was not considered inspired by its readers
A couple of things:
First, in discussing the canon, Eusebius does not say that some churches accept the disputed books while others don't know about them. Rather, he notes that some churches
reject some of those books. We can't chalk this up to books not circulating widely enough.
Second, this is again
not what we would expect given your hypothesis. If the canon was set in the 1st Century -- presumably under the imprimatur of the apostles themselves -- those books would be highly sought after. We'd expect churches all over the Empire to request them, and therefore for those writings to circulate widely, most likely together in collections.
The (genuine) Pauline epistles followed that pattern, but not the rest of the New Testament, and especially not Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.
