Establishment of Christian Canon?

I notice that you asked this exact same "question" not long ago, and it was answered: Who canonized the official New Testament?

Christians love to have their cake and eat it too.

For example, protestants love the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Aside from James, there is no Biblical (by which I mean canonical, the point in question) mention of an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus being martyred; aside from Peter, there is no historical mention of an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus being martyred. Yet protestants nevertheless advance the idea that eight of the other disciples were martyred, that one committed suicide, and that one was exiled.

What is their source? Catholic tradition, the very thing that is explicitly rejected by Protestantism. What is the source of the Catholic tradition on the martyrs of these disciples? Books that were rejected from the canon on grounds of heresy. For example, how do we know Andrew was martyred? The Acts of Andrew, of course. A book which was not only denied canonization, but deemed heretical.

Also I once spoke with an apologist who said that the Gospel of Thomas was denied canonization because at the end Jesus said that women must become men. He said that this was ridiculous. No explanation was given to me about all of the other equally ridiculous things Jesus said in the "real" gospels. I suppose if Matthew has Jesus saying something ridiculous, then it's obviously metaphorical, but if Thomas does the same thing, it's obviously literal.

Duvduv said:

Which sanctioned body decided on Scriptures containing these specific 4 gospels, the Epistles of Paul, etc.? Who established the canon? In Judaism it is stated that the canon of the Old Testament was determined by the Men of the Great Assembly, aka the Sanhedrin, the highest Court. In Christianity we find Justin Martyr obliquely referring to the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and no mention of Paul or his epistles. In Iraeneus of Lyons we find the FIRST explanation of "four gospels and no more," but not a shred of evidence in either case as to who determined this canon and no other. If this was allegedly done before the 4th century, so what was the official body that did it? And why did the Apology of Justin Martyr call his referred texts "Memoirs of the Apostles"? It would seem that the full body of the New Testament was not yet established or created yet, and was only established by the Empire under the direction of Eusebius (whose name BTW just happens to resemble Josephus.....).

Click to expand...

This free online seminary course from Reformed Theological Seminary entitled "The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon" by Dr. Michael J. Kruger provides hours upon hours of information. I need to take the time to give it a complete listen myself. One thing I know is Dr. Kruger favors the "Self-Authenticating" model, which differs from the Roman Catholic model. Quite honestly I think the Self-Authenticating model puts to rest arguments and questions regarding councils, and there is a compatibility to appreciate. The same model could and in my opinion should be applied to the canon of Judaism. The God of Scripture is self-revealing, self-attesting, and sovereignly superintended the oral and written word providentially to be preserved for future generations. So the ultimate authority of the canon, is God Himself, the author and finisher of the canon. Which at the same time does not diminish or take away from Him working through councils of men to settle matters of canon out of controversies and disputes over canon. It is a recognizing of the true hierarchy of authority.

Duvduv said:

And how pray tell did people find out that the canon was the canon if it wasn't authorized by a specific body? Did they get it by some revelation that goes unmentioned anywhere? The fact is that no one had the authority to canonize the books until the advent of the Constantinian regime, Eusebius, etc.

Click to expand...

Communities and councils were involved. They had a God given confidence and assurance. You have to consider where authority originates. Where did the shepherd boy David get his authority? Do you think because the Prophet Samuel anointed his head with oil that this act of faith is what gave him authority to rule over Israel? And by what authority would the Prophet appeal to? Did the authority of a Prophet depend on the agreement of a community or council?

Duvduv said:

In Judaism the prophecies were acknowledged by the Sanhedrins. All you are offering is your speculation about the Christian canon that you believe was set in the first century.

Click to expand...

"It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collection may have — and indeed is historically shown actually to have varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in handcopies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon — the complete Bible — obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e.g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the "canon" of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of "The Gospel and the Apostles," — Justin tells us were "written by the apostles and their companions." The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written." B.B. Warfield, The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament (1892)

"It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his.

Other circumstances which demanded clear definition of those books which possessed divine authority were the necessity of deciding which books should be read in church services (though certain books might be suitable for this purpose which could not be used to settle doctrinal questions), and the necessity of knowing which books might and might not be handed over on demand to the imperial police in times of persecution without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1959) Chapter 3

New Testament Books Treated as Traditional Scripture by Early Writers

Duvduv said:

Well Warrior, unfortunately your entire presentation is sheer speculation without any evidence at all. Indeed, outside of Church dogma there is no evifevid at all that sny of the New Testament was written in the first century altogether.

Click to expand...

The reason I gave funny ratings is because you're getting the cart before the horse, this is like arguing the resurrection of Christ to the atheist/agnostic, when they've not even come to Deism. In the same way argumentation and information in favor of the NT canon is equally unconvincing to people who reject Christ as the prophesied Messiah of the Old Testament. So I did not expect to convince you of the authenticity of the NT canon entering the discussion, and I am not surprised by your comments, nor the ungraceful and disrespectful nature of them, despite facts being presented to you. All of this simply proves an unwilling bias to give consideration on your part sir.

Duvduv said:

In Judaism the prophecies were acknowledged by the Sanhedrins.
All you are offering is your speculation about the Christian canon that you believe was set in the first century.

Click to expand...

That's not accurate.

You need to first know how the OT Canon was formed. The OT canonization started with king Hezekiah. 17 out of the 22 books are said to be with a Hezekiah seal. Due to the lack of a central authority during the Babylon exile, their could be variances and deviations in Scripture kept by the different groups of Jews. Ezra thus recompiled and edited the books. Since then the Sanhedrin took up the role as the authenticated guardian of the Canon. From this process, the authority is God Himself. There was not any human central authority before God appointed Ezra to recompile the books. It is so because the ultimate crafter is God Himself. A central human authority is just a keeper when the Canon itself is formed to a certain stable state.

In a similar fashion, the crafting of the NT books is ultimately a job of God. It's formed by early church fathers till to a certain extent reaching its stability, a canon can thus be used to describe the status of a compiled series of books. The Catholic church then was assigned the job as an earthly guardian. This role was passed to Protestants later on.

As a result,

The Jews (original witnesses of OT) are keeping a correct OT Canon.
The Catholics are keeping a correct NT Canon but not OT Canon.
The Protestants are keeping both a correct OT and NT Canon.

That's actually how the authentication itself works. It implies that God gave the Jews the authority to keep the OT but not the NT Canon. He gave the Catholics the authority to keep the NT but not the OT Canon. He finally gave the Protestants both a correct NT and a correct OT Canon.

Duvduv said:

All you are offering is your speculation about the Christian canon that you believe was set in the first century.

Click to expand...

Nobody who understands the history of the Christian Canon believes anything was set in the first century. Only someone completely ignorant about the development of the Bible would think it was "set in the first century" since nothing was set in the first century.

And was answered in your other thread, there was no final authority or governing body or agency of any sort that "decided" or finalized the Canon. The Canon did not develop by someone or some group on the top deciding things by fiat--that never happened. There were lots of people, people whose voices were respected, offering their own thoughts as part of an ongoing discussion and debate about which books should be read as part of the Church's cycle of liturgical readings, and there were small regional councils at various times which discussed this exact issue relevant for the jurisdictions themselves (such as Rome, Carthage, and Laodicea).

But the simple fact of the matter is that the New Testament Canon was arrived at by a general consensus, by what was happening in the churches themselves around the Christian world. Which is why ancient writers make a distinction between Homologoumena (those writings which had attained a universal acceptance early on, such as the four Gospels and the thirteen Pauline letters) and Antilegomena (those writings which there was not a consensus on, but which were disputed, such as 2 Peter, Jude, James, the Revelation, 1 Clement, Barnabas, and the Didache).

And those two categories of writings existed long before Constantine, and continued to exist long after Constantine.

Early western fathers were highly favorable toward the Apocalypse of St. John (aka the Revelation), but this was not universally true as the book was heavily contested in the eastern churches for most of the 1st millennium, this can actually be seen reflected in liturgical differences between East and West. The western cycle of readings includes readings from the Revelation, the eastern cycle of readings does not--because both cycles (the three year western lectionary and the one year eastern lectionary) developed well before a more general acceptance of the Revelation happened.

And on the other hand regional differences continued well into the middle ages, as well as other quirks. At some point the spurious letter of Paul to the Laodiceans found its way into copies of the Vulgate, which is why John Wycliffe includes it in his 14th century English translation of the Vulgate (Wycliffe Bible here), and 13th century versions of the Armenian Bible contained the spurious letter of III Corinthians. These works weren't even Antilegomena, but rather spurious texts pretty highly regarded in antiquity as spurious, but nevertheless found their way into usage or at least in copies of Scripture, at least for a time.

The fact is we can't point to any single time, place, or person(s) as to the when, where, or who of when the Christian Canon was established. Because there was no definitive when, where, or who; it was an organic process that arose not from people on the top dictating things for everyone for all times, but happened at the ground level. It was what was going on in the churches themselves, when people came together for worship. Which is why we speak of the development of the Canon as coming about by consensus, because there was a developing, growing general agreement about the books which make up the Christian Bible over the course of literally hundreds of years.

As such asking "Who did it?" isn't answerable, at least not in the way you want it to be. The only historically and factually accurate response to "Who did it?" is to answer everyone. The Canon wasn't an autocratic process, but a thoroughly democratic one; it was historic, general acceptance of Christian people, both laity and clergy, over the course of many centuries.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Nobody who understands the history of the Christian Canon believes anything was set in the first century. Only someone completely ignorant about the development of the Bible would think it was "set in the first century" since nothing was set in the first century.

Click to expand...

Because of bias he loaded the assertion with "first century" considering the date on the last canonized writing, and the possibility of any Church having a complete collection of handwritten NT to canonize, without even considering the amount of time invested by necessity for a scribe to copy even one writing. Not to mention the writings which are not canon which were circulating, and thus making matters that much more difficult on many fronts, fighting heresies from the beginning, slowing down the whole process.