NT Canon

(carryover from another thread)

One deduction is that these debates were a prelude to these books' introduction into the canon. My deduction is these debates were both a reaction to a 27 book NT canon that had been circulating since the 1st century and also a staunch defense against all books that may have had the appearance of not being apostolically sanctioned.

No NT manuscript of any time suggests books other than the 27 we have now were ever a part of the NT canon. Even 4th century Sinaiticus has the 27 NT books before its devotional readings of extrabiblical books. We may also observe the ca. 200 MS, p46, that has only NT books with no admixture of others, and other 3rd century MSS p45, p66, p75 are evidence for the same. If no one in the 2nd century knew what books were canonical, where is the mass of manuscript confusion surrounding the NT in any century? It's just not there.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I remember reading B. B. Warfield somewhere, wish I could remember where, saying something to the effect of, "The apostles themselves imposed the NT writings on the church regardless of whether the church recognized it or not." That pretty much sums up my idea of this arguing over the canon business. Sure, some church leaders wanted to make sure of the integrity of the canon, but they had absolutely no apostolic authority to decide what was or wasn't canonical in the first place. All they could do was recognize, as B. B. Warfield stated, what the apostles themselves had imposed on the church.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Mcgyver,

First of all, in ancient times the 66 book canon all put together in one book would hardly have been able to be moved simply for its weight and size.

That said, as far as I know, the earliest whole Bible that has lasted to the present day would be the great 4th century Greek uncial manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They contained all 66 books of the Bible, plus a couple books after Revelation, although the latter is not certain in the case of Vaticanus because the hind part of that MS has perished. I know from Matthew to Revelation in both there were 27 books, but for the Old Testament, Sinaiticus and perhaps Vaticanus also contained the apocryphal books, although, if I'm not mistaken, separate from the actual 39 OT books. This is not as important since the Hebrew OT has never kept anything other than the 39 books we have today.

So, you have hard evidence at least from the 4th century on, and it is doubtful that these two MSS were the first of their kind. But nearly 100 percent of all fragments of the NT ever found (dating back to the 2nd century) have been from bound "books" of the Bible, and this suggests that even from the earliest times of Christianity the Bible was circulated in bound sections, i.e., the four Gospels, Acts and the pastorals, Paul's letters (including Hebrews in the middle), and Revelation. If one was rich enough he might be able to purchase and bind the whole Bible together, but that, as the evidence shows, must have been quite rare.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

[ April 01, 2005, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Bluefalcon ]

 

I don't think so. I mean, you've got Clement of Rome in AD 90 quoting from like 24 of the 27 NT books, Hebrews being quoted the most! How much more circumstantial evidence does one need?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Oops, I'm mistaken in that Clement of Rome doesn't quote from or allude to as many N.T. books as I said, but does quote Hebrews most frequently. Actually equally as significant is Polycarp around 115 quoting from or mentioning every N.T. book but Jude!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

To be honest, I don't care if 10 popes called something Scripture that wasn't, it doesn't mean a thing to me.

In the 1st and 2nd centuries the church was most dominant in Asia Minor. The greatest concentration of churches and theological leaders of the 2nd century were from there. The apostle Paul's legacy, and perhaps the apostle John's as well, were seated there. How many documented cases are there from a leader in Asia Minor calling anything Scripture that wasn't?
(HINT: Let's take a good look at Polycarp here)

The apostles considered their own writings to be authoritative Scripture, and they imposed these on the church. Some in the church down the line were confused and some today still are. It doesn't matter to me. From the earliest times the church has always had the Scriptures whether it recognized it or not.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

That's okay, icthus, my thoughts are not your thoughts, obviously.....

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

"There are perhaps fifty clear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, and many allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NT writer not included is Jude!)"

Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the NT Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson), chapter 5, page 2.