Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why don't you start with the fact that we all share the 66 books of the Protestant bible, where Masoretic and Septuagint confirm the OT choices and then ask why some Christians choose also to accept extra books.
MOst of Pauls letters are pretty uncontroversial in terms of authorship even amongst liberal academics who do not have the Holy Spirit.
From your link...There was an acceptance quite early on which books had authority and which less so. This was demonstrated by usage and there is the Muratorian fragment from 170 which is a pretty early endorsement of a NT list
Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia
Basically if church x and church y were both using the same text from an early date , despite being in completely different church hierarchies and locations that was an endorsement of the texts authority.
So most of Pauls letters and the 4 gospels were in widespread use , early on. If these books are being quoted in burial artifacts, church liturgies, hymnology, church fathers etc then that is a further endorsement of them.
Usage was a test of validity even if it was not regarded as such at the time.
The selection of the canon did not require the endorsement of unbelieving liberal scholars when it was formed and does not need that now.
It is the community of believers that know which texts are of God and which not,
because they share the Spirit that inspired them and because these texts were written by those closest to Jesus and endorsed with his authority. The final selection process was made with reference to a church much closer to the events, probably in possession of original texts and in consensus about which books worked and which ones did not.
The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.
The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia"
The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians
The Eastern Syriac churches use the Peshitta, the New Testament of only 22 books
Sure...that doesn't answer all those questions though.
From your link...
"The definitive formation of the New Testament canon did not occur until 367, when bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his annual Easter letter composed the list that is still recognised today as the canon of 27 books. However, it would take several more centuries of debates until agreement on Athanasius' canon had been reached within all of Christendom."
So it was the middle of the fourth century before the modern bible began to take shape...and centuries still before the rest of christianity agreed to it.
There were multiple churches using the Infancy gospels early on....that doesn't make them authentic.
None of which makes them authentic. You're confusing popularity with authenticity.
Usage doesn't validate anything now....it certainly doesn't validate anything back then.
Of course not...
We aren't talking about why canon was selected though....we are talking about validity.
Oh?
So if a next text was unearthed today....all "believers" would agree on its authenticity?
That seems like a rather silly idea.
As a % of the total Christian population these churches are what 3 or 4%.
Their canon choices would not effect status as Christian churches or the salvation of their members but clearly has minor implications for secondary doctrines.
Regarding the thesis of the OP that the gospels are eyewitness testimony to the life of Christ they have no impact unless you can find a verse in one of these extra texts that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony. But even if you could it is clear that 97% of the church do not regard this as authoritative.
Why don't you start with the fact that we all share the 66 books of the Protestant bible, where Masoretic and Septuagint confirm the OT choices and then ask why some Christians choose also to accept extra books.
Let me reacquaint you with your assertion. Emphasis mine:
This line of argument seems a little off track re the OP. There is no disagreement about the use of the 4 gospels across all the churches and the Muratorian canon affirms a canon including these as early as 170AD.
It is possible someone alive in 170 could have even seen original texts in the churches.
There is nothing here that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony.
Per your link, 170AD is the oldest possible date for that text.
If they were 100 years old? And had a remarkable memory that allowed them to remember what they read at 1 year old?
Other than the lack of eyewitness testimony and the haphazard way these texts were decided upon as authentic 100+ years later....
Face it, there's no good reason to believe they are eyewitness testimony.
If the grandfather knew John and told the father this was the text that John gave and then later his grandson as a small child. If the paper looked the right age and the text resonated with other OT and NT texts and the father and grandfather were of good character then trusting them would not be that hard to do. You would have met a primary eyewitness to the event that you trusted and still see the text in front of you.
170 AD allows for numerous such trust chains to coalese and complement each other and reinforce the conviction that what was passed down was a written record of the events described.
The texts themselves very often tell you who the eyewitness was and the chain of witnesses is a trust worthy one and the text itself is written in a testimonial style.
I'm sorry, who is the primary witness in this scenario?
If it was indeed 170AD and that was indeed how such manuscripts were verified....but there's no evidence of that happening. Those who put the bible together in the late 300s didn't go around to all the churches asking for "who had a great great great great grandfather who verified the contents of this text as an eyewitness?"
That's absurd.
Really?? Do you have a particular example that you feel is a strong one for the gospels?
That's one heck of a lot of "ifs".
Yeah. I'm not gonna base my life on a 1000-person long whisper game.That was actually a fairly conservative view of the witness chain. In practice we are probably talking about thousands of witnesses to cover the 70 year gap between the death of the last apostle in 100AD and the Muratorian canon. They reinforce and affirm each other and some may have been living witnesses to the life of the apostle and to a direct affirmation of the text by him
Yeah. I'm not gonna base my life on a 1000-person long whisper game.
For which there is no evidence.It is 1,2 or maybe 3 long person chains multiplied by a thousand and reinforcing, complementing and affirming each others testimonies.
For which there is no evidence.
Gospels are eyewitness accounts
Suppose they are.
You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment. You don't believe Muhammad experienced divine revelations. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. Millions of Chinese peasants throughout history will tell you eating rhinoceros horn and dried tiger penis has cured them or their family members of all manner of ailments, yet you don't believe that. If I told you right here and now that I saw someone fly to Chicago yesterday by flapping their arms up and down, you wouldn't believe that either. And so forth.
You don't accept 'eyewitness accounts' as evidence for extraordinary claims. Neither do I.
The only difference is, I apply that standard consistently, while you do not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?