The Formation of the Bible Cannon

pescador said:

Constantine subsumed the church into the Holy Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

Constantine is a complex and pivotal character who stands as a marker in history. He moved the Capital from Rome to a new city on the site of Byzantium. Constantine was Proud, Powerful, Pragmatic and Political, yet he also had a strong streak of Piety. He stands at a time when the old Gods were leaving centre stage, and the Christian Church rose in importance and influence.

Charlmagne on Christmas Day 800 became the Holy Roman Emperor, and indeed was the first to use the title. This was a development, reflecting a growing secular importance for the Church, and expressing an interest in power and territory, and a growing struggle with the Byzantines (who perhaps confusingly for us understood themselves to be the Roman Empire).

Constantine is complex, and certainly he had his faults, yet there is no need for us to add to the list things that transpired some nearly 500 years after his death.

Philip_B said:

Constantine is a complex and pivotal character who stands as a marker in history. He moved the Capital from Rome to a new city on the site of Byzantium. Constantine was Proud, Powerful, Pragmatic and Political, yet he also had a strong streak of Piety. He stands at a time when the old Gods were leaving centre stage, and the Christian Church rose in importance and influence.

Charlmagne on Christmas Day 800 became the Holy Roman Emperor, and indeed was the first to use the title. This was a development, reflecting a growing secular importance for the Church, and expressing an interest in power and territory, and a growing struggle with the Byzantines (who perhaps confusingly for us understood themselves to be the Roman Empire).

Constantine is complex, and certainly he had his faults, yet there is no need for us to add to the list things that transpired some nearly 500 years after his death.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying. Constantine was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and stopped the persecution of Christians. It became the official religion of the Roman empire, and Jesus became the patron of the Roman army. The Catholic church is still headquartered in Rome and the official language of the church became Latin, the language of the conquerors of Judea, Samaria, etc. Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of Christ and his disciples, disappeared from the church altogether.

pescador said:

I don't understand what you're saying. Constantine was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and stopped the persecution of Christians. It became the official religion of the Roman empire, and Jesus became the patron of the Roman army. The Catholic church is still headquartered in Rome and the official language of the church became Latin, the language of the conquerors of Judea, Samaria, etc. Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of Christ and his disciples, disappeared from the church altogether.

Click to expand...

Constantine was the Roman Emperor. In 314 the Edict of Milan made Christianity (and any other religion) legal, and should have, and to a large extent did, end the persecution of Christians - though clearly at one stage Licinius resumed persecution of Christians. Constantine clearly treated the Church well, however his own position was a little more ambiguous, as he was the 'Pontifex Maximus' a pole which gave him specific responsibilities within the old Roman Mythros, and as such suggests that he was clearly at that stage not an outright Christian. He was baptised at the end of his life, by Eusebius. He was the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian. Christianity was not at anytime in Constantine's reign the official religion of the Roman Empire.

I have no idea where the idea that Jesus was the Patron of the Roman Army comes from. It is likely that the soldiers in Constantine's army had a form of the Chi Rho on their shields, which was indeed the emblem that Constantine used following the victory (?) at Milvian Bridge. I have a view that Constantine's victory here was more a matter of Maxentius making a gross military strategic blunder which ultimately gave the city into Constantine's hands.

In Constantine's time the Church was not headquartered in Rome, but rather Rome was one of the Patriarchal cities, along with Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, and in the post apostolic period their unity was found in Christ, and in the Conciliar period in Councils, up until the great schism. The Bishop of Rome was the Patriarch of the West.

The language of the western Church was largely latin, and the languages in the East, Greek and Coptic and others. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, in the main, which was the common trade language of the East. The enforcement of latin in liturgy came more in the time of Gregory and the Gregorian Rite some 300 years after Constantine.

I only made a comment because you made a bold assertion about Constantine, and the reality is that history does not bear out what you suggested. I think if you read up about this a bit more you will be amazed at the Story of Constantine who is as I suggested a very complex person, and his faith is equally complex.

In Constantine's time the only place where Christianity was the official religion was the Kingdom of Armenia, which indeed was the first country to be a christian country.

Too much of the reactionist history against Rome implies or believes that Rome WAS the Church ... she was only a part of it that eventually separated. But at the time of the formation of the Biblical Canon (most of it anyway) she was still quite in step with and important to the entire Church.

Mathetes66 said:

...

They had ALL the Scriptures up until then, at the time of Christ! Jesus taught that Himself. And He should know. He is the living Word of God.

Click to expand...

Bingo... The saying that he church gave us the Bible is backwards.

God gave us his word in the OT scriptures and preserved them. Jesus's references to the scriptures are to the OT.

When Paul taught the Bereans he did it from the OT.

The Gospels are a collection of writings which are preaching outlines to teach from the OT. They are snapshots of the learning of the apostles as they improved in understanding of the OT as seen through the light of the cross.

Each author captures a deeper understanding.
Mark started his teaching with the preaching of John the Baptist.
Matthew, writtten 10 or 15 years later understands more of the 'mystery hidden from the beginning' and begins his story with Abraham.
Luke captures more of the learning over time and starts his story with Adam.
John, already having three books as references, writes an addendum to capture more of the learning.

Paul's doctrine comes from the OT and it was checked by the Bereans.

The canon of OT scripture is still identifiable by the 'watermark' of sensus plenior (which modern theologians don't want you to read). The NT writings and doctrines which are from God can be traced back to OT sources.

The church, or bride of Christ, is hidden in the OT mystery. It can now be seen because the NT authors teach us to read the sensus plenior. The word for marriage in Hebrew is also 'doctrine'. Those who are the bride are those who are taught by Christ. God gave us the church through the Word, his Spirit and the cross.

God did not leave his word in the hands of men for preservation. Even without councils his word can be known today. He has preserved it.

shadowhunter said:

Bingo... The saying that he church gave us the Bible is backwards.

God gave us his word in the OT scriptures and preserved them. Jesus's references to the scriptures are to the OT.

When Paul taught the Bereans he did it from the OT.

The Gospels are a collection of writings which are preaching outlines to teach from the OT. They are snapshots of the learning of the apostles as they improved in understanding of the OT as seen through the light of the cross.

Each author captures a deeper understanding.
Mark started his teaching with the preaching of John the Baptist.
Matthew, writtten 10 or 15 years later understands more of the 'mystery hidden from the beginning' and begins his story with Abraham.
Luke captures more of the learning over time and starts his story with Adam.
John, already having three books as references, writes an addendum to capture more of the learning.

Paul's doctrine comes from the OT and it was checked by the Bereans.

The canon of OT scripture is still identifiable by the 'watermark' of sensus plenior (which modern theologians don't want you to read). The NT writings and doctrines which are from God can be traced back to OT sources.

The church, or bride of Christ, is hidden in the OT mystery. It can now be seen because the NT authors teach us to read the sensus plenior. The word for marriage in Hebrew is also 'doctrine'. Those who are the bride are those who are taught by Christ. God gave us the church through the Word, his Spirit and the cross.

God did not leave his word in the hands of men for preservation. Even without councils his word can be known today. He has preserved it.

Click to expand...

Doesn't this whole self-evident theory rest on completely ignoring the place of tradition in passing on Christ's teaching?

Let me answer propositionally:
If a church 'lost their first love', welcomed Judaisers, adopted the doctrines of Balaam, and conquered the laity (Nicolaitans), then went on to kill their enemies rather than love them as Christ taught, would you want to follow their tradition? Could you trust their doctrine and discernment?

There are many church groups who took to killing heretics. They justify it today saying that it was a different era that we cannot judge. But murder has been murder since Cain and Able, and Jesus specifically taught us to love our enemies. This is a simple test as to if their tradition is worthy to consider.

The tradition that Christ taught is contained in the writings of the apostles. There is nothing to elevate traditions of men above those.

"Bingo... The saying that the church gave us the Bible is backwards."

Click to expand...

While what I said is true, especially concerning the Hebrew OT, the apostolic churches were complementary--& did help confirm FOR THE MOST PART--what Jesus & the apostles already taught as canon. Where it gets muddled is when man-made (not Scripture defined tradition) traditions (such as the fradulent Septuagint origin letter by Aristeas) are given priority over Scripture (in that case the Hebrew OT) & go beyond what is written.

Rom 3:1,2 What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. FIRST OF ALL, they HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED with the very oracles (words) of God.

Who entrusted it to them? God did. He spoke through the prophets & those associated with them, in being the caretakers of God's Word.

Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to OUR FATHERS through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son...

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, came to understand FROM THE SACRED BOOKS, ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF YHWH disclosed to the prophet Jeremiah, the years for the fulfilling of the desolation of Jerusalem were seventy in number.

I Cor 4:5,6 He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness & will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself & Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us THE MEANING OF THE SAYING: "NOTHING BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN." THEN you will not take pride in one man over {against} another.

Human reasoning & logic & humanistic speculation that extrapolates beyond what is written is just that: humanistic & not God inspired nor Divine revelation.

Because of the lack of communication in some parts of Christiandom (east & west & African, etc.), some areas did not readily accept certain books due to lack of circulation as in other areas & were slower to accept or spoke primarily Latin & Greek vs Hebrew.

But as my earlier posts show, there is a straightforward acknowledgement, just in Scripture alone, that authenticates the majority of the canon during the time of the apostles, while they were still alive. They themselves authenticated what is Scripture & what is not.

Then there was the issue of the Setuagint + deutero-canonical books vs the Hebrew OT (Tenakh). The letters back & forth between Augustine & Jerome is a good example later on. That is for another subject which I have done some indepth study on.

This, then brings into light the following issue.

"The canon of OT scripture is still identifiable by the 'watermark' of sensus plenior (which modern theologians don't want you to read). The NT writings and doctrines which are from God can be traced back to OT sources...The church, or bride of Christ, is hidden in the OT mystery. It can now be seen because the NT authors teach us to read the sensus plenior."

Click to expand...

I am not one to subscribe to the hermeneutic theory of 'sensus plenior.' (SP) First of all, if one is going to use this term, one should define what the term actually means. I have seen several definitions of it & they are not the same.

It was originally coined by a Catholic priest & theologian around 1925-27 by the name of Andrea Fernández. It wasn't really discussed in Catholic circles until the 1940's & '50's. It was then popularized by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., an American Catholic priest & member of the Sulpician Fathers & a prominent biblical scholar, during the 1960's & '70's.

Orignally Andreas Fernandez defined it as tying together prophecies which had a literal meaning for the Jews at the time but had a fuller meaning for Christians as the prophecies were later fulfilled.

Raymond E Brown defined it as such: The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation” (SPSS, 92).

Reformation theology, on the Monergism website, defined it as: “Sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons & events in the OT are really 'types' & that the passages treating of those persons & events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.

Raymond E Brown differs with the above definition, stating SP goes beyond just being a type but has a deeper meaning that the writer wasn't aware of; finding SP to be somewhere between the literal & typical senses, though more toward the literal.

Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question.

To me there is much debate & confusion on what it is, which indicates to me that God is not the author of it & it is just a theory of man. Even Raymond E Brown changed his opinion of the importance of it nearer to the end of his life & conceded various discussions on this over the years bore this out.

Ironic.

I can't say that I'm a fan of holding the opinions of scholars born 2000 years after Christ above the teachings of the Churches who were established by and under the continued care of the Apostles themselves (before and while the NT was written).