Which books belong in the New Testament?

[doubtingmerle]

In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted.

How do you know that Athanasius got it right? Isn't it possible that one of the earlier lists was correct? Or isn't it possible that one of the later variations was correct?

If you do not know which books belong in your New Testament, how do you know that any belong? And if you cannot prove that any particular book belongs, how can you claim that any of those books is known to be inspired?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted.

How do you know that Athanasius got it right? Isn't it possible that one of the earlier lists was correct? Or isn't it possible that one of the later variations was correct?

If you do not know which books belong in your New Testament, how do you know that any belong? And if you cannot prove that any particular book belongs, how can you claim that any of those books is known to be inspired?

I think you may be giving Athanasius far more credit than he deserves. As it's clear that even after Athanasius was gone there was some fluidity and wiggle within the New Testament, I believe Codex Sinaiticus, for example, included 1 Clement and the Shepherd.

Also, I could be wrong, but given that Athanasius' jurisdiction was limited to the See of Alexandria, I do not believe the letter--therefore--was of authority outside. This doesn't mean that Athanasius' opinions were not relevant outside of the Egyptian churches, only that they were not here binding upon the Church outside of Alexandria's jurisdiction.

For such a thing to be binding upon the whole Church would require the work of an ecumenical council, of which none took place to define the exact contents of either the New Testament or Old Testament Canons.

It would be better, at least most probably, to say that Athanasius--as far as the New Testament was concerned--was speaking more out of the general consensus of the time, for the sake of the churches under his pastoral care, rather than laying down any sort of codification for the universal Church.

Books like the Shepherd and the Didache didn't fall out of complete use, though, but they did eventually. In the same way, the Revelation of John at the time was still, to some degree, held suspect in some fashion (I believe the Syrian churches still took issue with it at the time, and continued to do so until around the time of St. John of Damascus).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted.

How do you know that Athanasius got it right? Isn't it possible that one of the earlier lists was correct? Or isn't it possible that one of the later variations was correct?

If you do not know which books belong in your New Testament, how do you know that any belong? And if you cannot prove that any particular book belongs, how can you claim that any of those books is known to be inspired?

Does it count for nothing that once the New Testament Canon was finalized it has remained unchanged for 16 centuries? From this one can infer that while there may not have been a formal canon previous to the Fourth Century, it is highly likely that those books which were referenced, having Apostolic credentials, were fairly universal in use and acceptance. A book isn't authoritative because it's in the Bible; it's in the Bible because it's authoritative.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think you may be giving Athanasius far more credit than he deserves. As it's clear that even after Athanasius was gone there was some fluidity and wiggle within the New Testament, I believe Codex Sinaiticus, for example, included 1 Clement and the Shepherd.

Yes, I agree that Athanasius did not give the definitive answer for all churches. His importance is that he is the first that we have a record of that listed the New Testament canon as we know it.

Many Christians believe that all the books listed by Athanasius are the inspired Word of God, and those that Athanasius missed are not God's word. They seem to be putting far too much faith in Athanasius and the folks who later agreed with him.

Books like the Shepherd and the Didache didn't fall out of complete use, though, but they did eventually. In the same way, the Revelation of John at the time was still, to some degree, held suspect in some fashion (I believe the Syrian churches still took issue with it at the time, and continued to do so until around the time of St. John of Damascus).

So if there are folks here that believe that the book of Revelation is the inspired word of God, but not the Didache, how do they explain that many early Christians included the Didache in their set of books, and many excluded Revelation?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So if there are folks here that believe that the book of Revelation is the inspired word of God, but not the Didache, how do they explain that many early Christians included the Didache in their set of books, and many excluded Revelation?

I couldn't really speak for anyone else, but I come from the general position that since the general consensus of the Church has been that the Revelation of John is inspired, but the Didache is not then it's fine as-is. I may at times wish the Revelation wasn't included (it'd rectify the over-obsession some have with the book, even though I personally love the Revelation) and personally love the Didache and kinda wish it had been included in the long run; but my thoughts are basically, if it's not broken don't fix it.

I'm okay that the the Biblical Canon has been in flux for the last two thousand years, it's part of the fact that Christians have since the beginning wrestled with being faithful to the Jesus in whom their faith is placed. I'm even okay with the fact that Christians, today, still debate matters of the Canon, I don't think the Bible has to be this immaculate, perfect almost magical thing to be what it needs to be, it just needs to be the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted.

How do you know that Athanasius got it right? Isn't it possible that one of the earlier lists was correct? Or isn't it possible that one of the later variations was correct?

If you do not know which books belong in your New Testament, how do you know that any belong? And if you cannot prove that any particular book belongs, how can you claim that any of those books is known to be inspired?

Irregardless of who compiled we are responsible for what we have been entrusted with. If you have ever bother reading any of the books in that list, particularly the book of Mt. you may remember a parable Jesus told us about being faithful to what we have been given. The Story Christ outlines in not of one where "we" get to pick and choose what we worship based on what others may have nor what we might miss out on. We are to be faithful to what it is we have been entrusted with. Despite what we could have.

That means if out of the complete new testament we only have one good book, then we'd better be faithful to it and use that book to show a return on our masters investment. the only way to do that is to use all of the NT as if it were that one book.

Our job is to be faithful to what we have been given, it is God's responsibility to give us something to be faithful to.

 

[JasperJackson]

I'm no scholar on how the NT was compiled but it wasn't just Athanasius making a call on what's in and what's out.

The point I want to make is that even at the time of writing the apostles knew what was scripture (at least in some cases). Peter claimed that Paul's writing were scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16 "15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

So divine inspiration was certainly not an afterthought centuries later.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Irregardless of who compiled we are responsible for what we have been entrusted with.

Ok, but which books have we been entrusted with? Is the Shepherd of Hermas one of the books we have been entrusted with? How about the Book of Morman? What about the Gospel of Peter? What about Matthew?

If I must follow all the books to which I have been entrusted, and there are many different lists, how could I determine which list is the official list of books to which you have been entrusted?

If you have ever bother reading any of the books in that list, particularly the book of Mt. you may remember a parable Jesus told us about being faithful to what we have been given. The Story Christ outlines in not of one where "we" get to pick and choose what we worship based on what others may have nor what we might miss out on. We are to be faithful to what it is we have been entrusted with. Despite what we could have.

What if those who entrusted you with books made a mistake? Should you be faithful to what they have chosen, even if they made a mistake?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm no scholar on how the NT was compiled but it wasn't just Athanasius making a call on what's in and what's out.

Then who did make the call?

And why is it that we have no record of anybody making the call that Athanasius made before he made his call in 367 AD? If the 27 books of the New Testament are specially inspired as opposed to books like Barnabas, wouldn't someone have made that call before Athanasius?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm okay that the the Biblical Canon has been in flux for the last two thousand years, it's part of the fact that Christians have since the beginning wrestled with being faithful to the Jesus in whom their faith is placed. I'm even okay with the fact that Christians, today, still debate matters of the Canon, I don't think the Bible has to be this immaculate, perfect almost magical thing to be what it needs to be, it just needs to be the Bible.

Oh, I see, so the Bible doesn't have to be immaculate and perfect? It's just a collection of good ideas (mixed with some imperfect ideas)?

If you agree that the Bible contains some error, then it becomes a question of determining which statements in the Bible are false and which are true.

 

[JasperJackson]

Then who did make the call?

And why is it that we have no record of anybody making the call that Athanasius made before he made his call in 367 AD? If the 27 books of the New Testament are specially inspired as opposed to books like Barnabas, wouldn't someone have made that call before Athanasius?

As I said in my previous post, the NT writers knew when they were being written what was scripture. How? Who made that call? The Holy Spirit.

 

[drich0150]

Ok, but which books have we been entrusted with? Is the Shepherd of Hermas one of the books we have been entrusted with? How about the Book of Morman? What about the Gospel of Peter? What about Matthew?

The books of the New testament are the books we have been entrusted with.

If I must follow all the books to which I have been entrusted, and there are many different lists, how could I determine which list is the official list of books to which you have been entrusted?

Because they all have been compiled into the New testament.

What if those who entrusted you with books made a mistake? Should you be faithful to what they have chosen, even if they made a mistake?

Absolutely. Why?

Mt 25:
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Because bottom line We have been given the New testament, and whether you look at it as one "Bag of gold" or five (Rather whether you look at it as the most complete record of God's will or an incomplete record of God's will) This is what we have been given. It is not for us to judge what we have been entrusted with. Lest you can find Book Chapter and verse that commands us to recompile the bible for every generation, we must simply be faithful to what we have.

Again It Is God's Responsibility To Provide Us With A Bag(s) Of Gold. It Is Our Responsibility To Use What We Have Been Given. (No matter what that looks like.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I said in my previous post, the NT writers knew when they were being written what was scripture. How? Who made that call? The Holy Spirit.

Can you explain how you know that the New Testament writers knew they were writing scripture? Only the writer of revelation actually makes that claim.

You mention that the writer of Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture" (greek graphē) but that greek word was used for all writings, not just inspired writings.

And even if the writer of 2 Peter, whoever he was, was actually claiming that Paul's writings were inspired, he nowhere makes the claim for his own book.

And even if the writers knew they were writing scripture, how is it that nobody else seems to know? For all the early lists of books combine some of the currently recognized books with books that are not currently recognized. There is nothing in those early lists to indicate that some of the books were scripture and some were not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because they all have been compiled into the New testament.

Well yes, books have been compiled into the New Testament, but that happened in the fourth century.

But what about those people who lived in the first 3 centuries of Christianity? If the list of book is so important that all of us are required to live our lives by the books in that list, why is it that every single list that we have before 360 AD differ with the list that you have?

The first list of books we have was compliled by Marcion about 150 AD. It included 10 epistles and one gospel, the Diatessaron.

So are you saying that in those days people were required to live by that list, since that was the list they were given?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Most Protestants don't really have a good answer for this. They can't. The fact of the matter is that the New Testament was compiled by Church Councils. Before that, the canon was derived from tradition. That's why the lists before Nicaea and Carthage are quite similar, but vary enough to be a problem. That's why the leaders of the Church got together and talked it out. The Councils of Carthage defined a canon, but the canon wasn't formally closed (in the western Church) until the Council of Trent.

The Protestants each came up with their own canons during the Reformation. Almost all of those canons declared in their confessions were the same 66 book canon. Of course, they inherited the canon from Tradition while simultaneously rejecting it. It's quite funny when you think about it.

 

[AlexBP]

Oh, I see, so the Bible doesn't have to be immaculate and perfect? It's just a collection of good ideas (mixed with some imperfect ideas)?

If you agree that the Bible contains some error, then it becomes a question of determining which statements in the Bible are false and which are true.

Well yes, it does. It's not unlike the fact that there's some controversy among knowledgable people about which plays Shakespeare actually wrote, yet no doubt that the bulk of the good plays we associate with Shakespeare were actually written by him. Similarly, as Dr. Bruce Metzger said, "While we see some futzing around the edges of the [New Testament] canon in the fourth century, the main part of it was firmly established and constant through the late second, third, and fourth centuries.

As for the fact that the Bible is not perfect, of course it's not; mistakes have been well-known for millenia. We worship Jesus Christ; we do not worship the Bible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because bottom line We have been given the New testament, and whether you look at it as one "Bag of gold" or five (Rather whether you look at it as the most complete record of God's will or an incomplete record of God's will) This is what we have been given. It is not for us to judge what we have been entrusted with.

Why not? If we were given a false list, why should we not judge that list?

Lest you can find Book Chapter and verse that commands us to recompile the bible for every generation, we must simply be faithful to what we have.

Again It Is God's Responsibility To Provide Us With A Bag(s) Of Gold. It Is Our Responsibility To Use What We Have Been Given. (No matter what that looks like.)

OK, the first canon we had consisted of 10 epistles and the Diatessaron. Were they the "gold" books for the early Christians? If we should never recomplie the list, why don't you stick with the first published list we have? Why do you accept the recompilied list that comes from the fourth century? And if you accept the recomplied list, why do you tell us that the list should never be changed?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Protestants each came up with their own canons during the Reformation. Almost all of those canons declared in their confessions were the same 66 book canon. Of course, they inherited the canon from Tradition while simultaneously rejecting it. It's quite funny when you think about it.

Yes, I agree. Its quite odd to see Protestants argue that the Catholic Church in the fourth century could not possbily have made a mistake when they selected books for the canon, while at the same time insisting that the Catholic heirarchy was making many mistakes back then.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes, I agree. Its quite odd to see Protestants argue that the Catholic Church in the fourth century could not possbily have made a mistake when they selected books for the canon, while at the same time insisting that the Catholic heirarchy was making many mistakes back then.

The only answer I've seen (which isn't a good answer at all in my opinion) is that God made sure the canon was infallibly defined, and he just happened to use Councils to do it. I've never really gotten a good answer as to why that doesn't make the rest of the promulgations of those Councils infallible, but whatever.

 

[Lukaris]

I think the New Testament writings were later determined to be scripture when the apostles died off by their successors since it was determined that God's revelation was complete (the book of Revelation, 95 AD, and the nearing death of the apostle St. John seem to testify of this). This seems to have been soon realized since St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 AD or earlier) mentions in one of his epistles (written late in his life while under a pending death sentence) that he does not write as an apostle but speaks as one who in reality knew some of them. St. Ignatius writes & preaches according to the revelation of Jesus Christ but rarely directly from scripture but his record affirms the virgin birth, the Trinity, the blessed Eucharist, the resurrection etc.; basically Christian tradition prior to the New Testament canon.

St. Ignatius was probably speaking of the faith when it was in an oral tradition because it was probably mostly in the catecombs at this point. A letter from (St.) Aristides to the emperor Hadrian(ca. 125 AD) pleading for tolerance of the Christians from a non Christian reflects a simple community that lived basically among the 2 great commands, the 10 commandments, the golden rule etc. Arisitdes later became a Christian.

There is actually a close canonical list of the NT from the late 2nd c. as indicated by St. Irenaeus (140-202 AD) see Holy Fathers - the early Church and the Bible St. Irenaeus preached Jesus Christ directly from the Old Testament in his "Demonstration of the apostolic preaching" although his very speech virtually quotes parts of the NT in some areas which reflects an imbedded but still unofficial canon.

St. Irenaeus seems to be the first bishop to clarify the need for an NT canon since there were dozens of false gnostic writings purported to be Gospel & preachings of the apostles circulating in his time. Irenaeus outlines most of these in book one of his 5 vol. masterpiece: "Against the Heresies" which is later than the "Demonstration" writing mentioned previously. For ex. he roundly condemns the "gospel" of Judas that was dredged up as some sort of "suppressed" writing a few years back during Easter. Irenaeus, as much as he despised these writings, had only prayer & pity towards those who wrote them. So these may be examples of how the sacred writings were preserved, preached, & later canonized.