New Testament - when did it begin?

[JacktheCatholic]

I don;t.

Then why are you even posting in this thread???


Now maybe there is someone out there with some knowledge of scripture and it's history that wishes to provide their opinion of when the New Testament was canonized or decided on definatively?

 

[ebia]

Then why are you even posting in this thread???

Because I think it's important sometimes to challenge our tendency to draw clear lines where none actually exist. Whereever you draw the line will be misleading. Sometimes it's much better to learn to live with complexity and ambiguity rather than reduce everything to what is clear-cut, unambiguous, and wrong.

 

[Radagast]

What about the entire New Testament? I am not as interested as when each book was written in the New Testament, but rather as to when all 27 were decided to be the inspired writings of God and selected for the Divine Liturgy. Does that help?

Well, most of the New Testament (at least the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles) was settled some time in the first or second century (see, for example, the Muratorian Canon, from around 180).

Some of the smaller epistles were at first not circulated to the whole Christian world, however. And for some books there was debate as to whether they were "Apostolic." The ancient Codex Sinaiticus contains two books (the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas) that were later declared non-canonical.

The exact New Testament list we have was first articulated by Athanasius in 367 (i.e. before the Vulgate).

The decision had nothing to do with the Divine Liturgy, as far as I know. Rather, the end of persecution and the formation of a Christian empire under Constantine led to the need for consistency between the Scriptures used in different cities, in the same way that the Council of Nicea discussed consistency in theology and in issues of worship (such as whether prayer should be done kneeling or standing).

 

[calluna]

The exact New Testament list we have was first articulated by Athanasius in 367

When the astute, down-to-earth Henry Ford chose the word 'bunk' to describe history as it is taught in schools, he probably did not include seminaries in his ambit. Had he done so, he might well have felt obliged to use the word 'farce' instead.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, most of the New Testament (at least the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles) was settled some time in the first or second century (see, for example, the Muratorian Canon, from around 180).

Some of the smaller epistles were at first not circulated to the whole Christian world, however. And for some books there was debate as to whether they were "Apostolic." The ancient Codex Sinaiticus contains two books (the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas) that were later declared non-canonical.

The exact New Testament list we have was first articulated by Athanasius in 367 (i.e. before the Vulgate).

The decision had nothing to do with the Divine Liturgy, as far as I know. Rather, the end of persecution and the formation of a Christian empire under Constantine led to the need for consistency between the Scriptures used in different cities, in the same way that the Council of Nicea discussed consistency in theology and in issues of worship (such as whether prayer should be done kneeling or standing).

Thanks for your informative post. I agree with most of it, with the exception of the purpose consisting of the Divine Liturgy.

 

[SummaScriptura]

To clarify...

What about the entire New Testament? I am not as interested as when each book was written in the New Testament, but rather as to when all 27 were decided to be the inspired writings of God and selected for the Divine Liturgy. Does that help?


Currently I am to understand that there was much debate in the early as what the final consensus would be regarding books meant for the Divine Liturgy. I also am to understand that the reason the 27 books were chosen was because they were meant to be read during the Divine Liturgy and so they need contain all inspired writings. I have read that the Latin Vulgate played a part in this.

There was never a concensus on the 27 books of the New Testament. As a practical matter you could say the Church Universal has only agreed upon 22 of the 27 books in your Bible, the Syrian Orthodox not accepting 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. These five books they rejected because did not come to them from the earliest times in Aramaic.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There was never a concensus on the 27 books of the New Testament. As a practical matter you could say the Church Universal has only agreed upon 22 of the 27 books in your Bible, the Syrian Orthodox not accepting 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. These five books they rejected because did not come to them from the earliest times in Aramaic.

I see your point.

 

[calluna]

the Church Universal

That would be the Church Worldly, I suppose.

 

[Yarddog]

The New Testament is a collection of writings much like the Old Testament. And like the Old Testament they were not delivered already bound and proof read since it took many years for them to be written and decided on. So when did the New Testament formally come in to existance?

Hi Jack,
I know that you are talking about the written, at least I assume that, but to me the NT is the Gospel. This came into existence with the birth of Jesus and was fulfilled with his ascension. Everything else was either written or spoken, with the most part being spoken, about Jesus. Thus the NT existed long before it was canonized.

Yarddog

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hi Jack,
I know that you are talking about the written, at least I assume that, but to me the NT is the Gospel. This came into existence with the birth of Jesus and was fulfilled with his ascension. Everything else was either written or spoken, with the most part being spoken, about Jesus. Thus the NT existed long before it was canonized.

Yarddog

In this sense I see your point and agree.

Is it believed that the teachings were oral and not written for 20 years or is it more?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That would be the Church Worldly, I suppose.

Yes, they would say Universal Church as a wya of saying all the churches are One. That is how they started calling the church one or Catholic. Catholic comes form the Greek for Universal and was used in the 1st century. A surviving letter written by the Bishop of Antioch wrote as such.

Ignatius of Antioch


"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[ebia]

In this sense I see your point and agree.

Is it believed that the teachings were oral and not written for 20 years or is it more?

The earliest of Paul's epistles were probably penned around 20 years after Jesus' death. The gospel narratives in their final form probably not until more like 30-50 years after Jesus death - although each of the resurrection accounts (which form the heart of the gospel) show signs of having been fixed, either in writting or a very fixed oral form, much earlier than anything else.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The earliest of Paul's epistles were probably penned around 20 years after Jesus' death. The gospel narratives in their final form probably not until more like 30-50 years after Jesus death - although each of the resurrection accounts show signs of having been fixed, either in writting or a very fixed oral form, much earlier than anything else.

Thanks.

I think many scholars still debate much of this and some even dispute the authenticity of some of the NT writings. It is because the ECFs attest to these contested writings that we can be sure they are true.

 

[ebia]

Thanks.

I think many scholars still debate much of this and some even dispute the authenticity of some of the NT writings.

The dates of the early Pauline letters is pretty much agreed to by everyone, and most people would put the synoptic gospels in that range. Some people would date John, or parts of John, a bit later.

The idea that the resurrection accounts were fixed very, very early is a bit more contraversial, but N.T. Wright in particular makes a very strong case for it.

and some even dispute the authenticity of some of the NT writings.

The authorship of some is up for grabs. "Authenticity" would depend on what one means by authentic. A lot of the argument about some of the gospel stories being later gloss tend to assume what they go on to prove in a circular fashion.

It is because the ECFs attest to these contested writings that we can be sure they are true.

They certainly help, but there is a good deal of internal evidence as well.

 

[calluna]

That would be the Church Worldly, I suppose.
​

Yes

worldly pertaining to this world, esp. as distinguished from the world to come: devoted to this life and its enjoyments: bent on gain. Chambers Dict

worldliness devotion to worldly affairs to the neglect of religious duties or spiritual needs: love of the world and its pleasures. 0ED

Catholic comes form the Greek for Universal

'"Enter through the narrow gate; because wide is the gate, and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate, and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."' Mt 7:13-14

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, they would say Universal Church as a wya of saying all the churches are One. That is how they started calling the church one or Catholic. Catholic comes form the Greek for Universal and was used in the 1st century. A surviving letter written by the Bishop of Antioch wrote as such.

I'd have to disagree on this point Jack. The Church Universal (Catholic), does not equate to the "Church Worldy" as in the post above. The Church Universal transcends the world and consists of the saints in heaven too.

I can only imagine what a "Church Worldy" would be. Counterfeit, perhaps and maybe that is what that poster is trying to convey.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'd have to disagree on this point Jack. The Church Universal (Catholic), does not equate to the "Church Worldy" as in the post above. The Church Universal transcends the world and consists of the saints in heaven too.

I can only imagine what a "Church Worldy" would be. Counterfeit, perhaps and maybe that is what that poster is trying to convey.

Point taken, we are not of this world (John 17).

I agree.

 

[calluna]

I can only imagine what a "Church Worldy" would be.

One directed by an emperor who was known as 'the thirteenth apostle', perhaps.