Who canonized the official New Testament?

[Hawkins]

All I can do is repeat the question, and hope that you won't answer the question with a question. IF the NT existed in the 1st and 2nd century what was the official authority that established which texts were divinely inspired for inclusion and which were not?

First, history has no proof. You sound as if history can be evidence itself is false premise. The so-called Canon was developed intangibly and progressively as it was not a necessity at the beginning to have a Canon at all. it was started possibly from the late second century that Christians were facing the challenge from the false writings not legitimately flowing around. This drove the need of a more formal and explicit set of legitimate books we call Canon today. Eusebius just compiled what already existed as a set of legitimate and authenticated books for us to call them a canon. Those books are authenticated because they are used as legitimate books by the early fathers, especially those assigned as bishops.

It's not formed all of a sudden as you tried to portray. How those books were considered legitimate by the early church fathers may not be fully evidenced, this is the nature of what history itself is. What we call evidence today is from the letters and opinions expressed in works and letters of the early church fathers. From these works and letter it can be told that the so-called Canon was not formed all of a sudden in several days. It was in a progressive fashion and the need for a more explicit Canon was to counter the attack from the false gospel and heretic writings.

 

[Starcomet]

The fact is that there was no authority on what was canon in the first or second century. All you had were several groups that had their own writings that they used in their communities. Some were more popular than others like the Gospel of Mark which was used in several communities. We do not know how the church officials in the 4th century decided on the official canon, but they did believe that the most popular gospels and writings should have been included.

 

[Petros2015]

When was the Jewish canon (Old Testament) closed?

 

[Petros2015]

DuvDuv asked me to communicate that he is no longer allowed to reply in this forum but can do so under Christian Apologetics.

 

[Greg J.]

Taking a more spiritual tack:

There is a difference between identifying the authorizer of the canon and proving it to someone else. In hunting for my first church (after having read the Bible and watching television preachers for years), God showed me which my first brick and mortar church would be. The Bible that church used is the canon for me. But I don't believe there is a different canon for different people. Any writing for which God chose every jot and tittle is a part of the canon.

However, can a someone that does not believe in God know which canon is right? He can't, because believing God did something requires believing God is real. (The easiest path for Jews who believe in the God of the Old Testament can believe in the canon of the New Testament is its own subject.)

People wondering about the reality of the divinity of Jesus can can do some different things:
[1] Examine historical and archeological evidence,
[2] Pray that if he (Jesus) is real to please show you the truth and save you—which he typically will not do unless the person is genuinely willing to turn control of their life over to him, because the person will be held accountable for rejecting that revelation on top of all the other evidence that they've rejected,
[3] find people who are sane, stable, not manipulative or given to hallucinations, and who don't live in fantasy world who claim to have clear experiences of God and listen to their testimonies. Listening to what other people believe won't be enough if the person is resistant to submitting to the Lord (often seen as a rejection of all evidence given). For such people, God raising a dead person wouldn't be enough, because there are ways to explain that away, which can be considered a self-test, too—if a person isn't willing to believe in God if they see someone rise from the dead, then their rejection of God is already set in stone (although God will forgive and accept anyone that goes to him).

 

[Steve Petersen]

Taking a more spiritual tack:

There is a difference between identifying the authorizer of the canon and proving it to someone else. In hunting for my first church (after having read the Bible and watching television preachers for years), God showed me which my first brick and mortar church would be. The Bible that church used is the canon for me. But I don't believe there is a different canon for different people. Any writing for which God chose every jot and tittle is a part of the canon.

However, can a someone that does not believe in God know which canon is right? He can't, because believing God did something requires believing God is real. (The easiest path for Jews who believe in the God of the Old Testament can believe in the canon of the New Testament is its own subject.)

People wondering about the reality of the divinity of Jesus can can do some different things:
[1] Examine historical and archeological evidence,
[2] Pray that if he (Jesus) is real to please show you the truth and save you—which he typically will not do unless the person is genuinely willing to turn control of their life over to him, because the person will be held accountable for rejecting that revelation on top of all the other evidence that they've rejected,
[3] find people who are sane, stable, not manipulative or given to hallucinations, and who don't live in fantasy world who claim to have clear experiences of God and listen to their testimonies. Listening to what other people believe won't be enough if the person is resistant to submitting to the Lord (often seen as a rejection of all evidence given). For such people, God raising a dead person wouldn't be enough, because there are ways to explain that away, which can be considered a self-test, too—if a person isn't willing to believe in God if they see someone rise from the dead, then their rejection of God is already set in stone (although God will forgive and accept anyone that goes to him).

Nonsense on every level.

History and archeology can't prove the divinity of Jesus.

Having an experience of Jesus is completely subjective. People all over the world have religious experiences regardless of which religion they are.

 

[Greg J.]

Apparently you did not read my first sentence. My post is about a person knowing for himself, which cannot be conveyed to other people. In all cases, there will be people who think they know, but are wrong, and will tell of their experiences. The only way we know and are correct is when the Lord grants us faith, and the path to that can be any of what I mentioned.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Apparently you did not read my first sentence. My post is about a person knowing for himself, which cannot be conveyed to other people. In all cases, there will be people who think they know, but are wrong, and will tell of their experiences. The only way we know and are correct is when the Lord grants us faith, and the path to that can be any of what I mentioned.

Prove it.

 

[Kristen.NewCreation]

This thread was moved from Exploring Christianity to Christian Apologetics. Please read the statement of purpose before participating here. Thanks!​

 

[Greg J.]

If you do not believe God's words, you won't believe my words or the millions of people (mostly not in industrialized countries) who know this verse is true:

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14:21, 1984 NIV)

 

[cvanwey]

One must remember also that the Word of God is self-authenticating.

How so?

 

[cvanwey]

If you do not believe God's words, you won't believe my words or the millions of people (mostly not in industrialized countries) who know this verse is true:

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14:21, 1984 NIV)

How might one know this is God's words, other than appealing to circular reasoning? Is there an effective way, besides (i.e.) - 'because it says so in the Bible'?

 

[cvanwey]

It only comes into real consideration when we have some upstart like Marcion of Sinope who wanted to heap ad hominems upon the Old Testament writings.

And one could 'argue' that Marcion was the catalyst, as to the idea of collectively piecing together a New Testament to begin with.... Prior to this, there existed no unity, or any collective works, which we today acknowledge as a NT.

I'm not saying I hold to this view wholeheartedly. I just thought it might add another perspective for the OP-er to investigate as a plausible conclusion to the assembly of the NT.

 

[cvanwey]

The books had all been in use prior to their canonization, but their authenticity was confirmed at a handful of late fourth century/early fifth century councils.

When you state 'authenticity' and 'confirmed', are you also referring to all supernatural claims as well, or just physical claims (such as He was born, where He lived, where He taught, who He taught, and where/how He died)? Because there's a large difference, in 'verification methods', between natural and supernatural claims....

 

[TuxAme]

When you state 'authenticity' and 'confirmed', are you also referring to all supernatural claims as well, or just physical claims (such as He was born, where He lived, where He taught, who He taught, and where/how He died)? Because there's a large difference, in 'verification methods', between natural and supernatural claims....

I was speaking mostly of physical claims. The problem facing the early Church was that many people wrote "gospels" in the name of a close follower of Jesus. For example, the gospel of Judas. Judas didn't really write this gospel, and the early Church recognized this. The same with the gospel of Thomas and others. I'd say this is one of the first ways the Church made the determination of supernatural authenticity: are the authors who they say they are?

 

[cvanwey]

I was speaking mostly of physical claims. The problem facing the early Church was that many people wrote "gospels" in the name of a close follower of Jesus. For example, the gospel of Judas. Judas didn't really write this gospel, and the early Church recognized this. The same with the gospel of Thomas and others. I'd say this is one of the first ways the Church made the determination of supernatural authenticity: are the authors who they say they are?

Okay, one could arguably agree with the physical verification methods. But how might one go about authenticating and justifying supernatural claims (as there are many of those within the NT as well)?

 

[cvanwey]

Apparently you did not read my first sentence. My post is about a person knowing for himself, which cannot be conveyed to other people. In all cases, there will be people who think they know, but are wrong, and will tell of their experiences. The only way we know and are correct is when the Lord grants us faith, and the path to that can be any of what I mentioned.

Faith can be effectively used for any religion. So how might your specific rendition and use of 'faith' differ from any/all alternative faith based positions?

 

[TuxAme]

Okay, one could arguably agree with the physical verification methods. But how might one go about authenticating and justifying supernatural claims?

It's by supernatural guidance that supernatural claims are "justified", as you put it. We see in the gospels how Jesus gave the apostles teaching authority, and we see that authority exercised in the book of Acts, when Peter proclaims doctrine at the Church's first council in Jerusalem. It's only by the divine (or, supernatural) guidance given to the Church that we are able to recognize what is and isn't divinely inspired.

 

[cvanwey]

It's by supernatural guidance that supernatural claims are "justified", as you put it. We see in the gospels how Jesus gave the apostles teaching authority, and we see that authority exercised in the book of Acts, when Peter proclaims doctrine at the Church's first council in Jerusalem. It's only by the divine (or, supernatural) guidance given to the Church that we are able to recognize what is and isn't divinely inspired.

I'm sorry, but I hope you can at least 'objectively' or 'unemotionally' take a look at this answer/reply from a completely unbiased and non-presuppositional perspective. Please allow me to clarify, by changing a few choice words from your last posted reply:

'It's by supernatural guidance that supernatural claims are "justified", as you put it. We see in the Qur'an how Muhammad.... etc....'

We can also be sure that the Holy text is authentic, by reading verses, such as Surah 4:82

'Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.'

 

[cvanwey]

All I can do is repeat the question, and hope that you won't answer the question with a question. IF the NT existed in the 1st and 2nd century what was the official authority that established which texts were divinely inspired for inclusion and which were not?

Here's just a thought... If the NT is of any importance at all, how about Jesus/God write it himself, make sure it remains preserved (from day one), and make sure it's written universally in a way in which many opposing denominations do not translate almost all verses differently. Instead relying upon oral tradition (leading to growing legendary tales), and awaiting fallible humans to later write verse to paper (decades/centuries later - taken from prior oral tradition and hearsay), appears very inefficient on all accounts; for many reasons, if one wants to claim 'inerrancy.'