Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: I said to Roger Pearse:

What do you have to say about these issues?

Killer Mike

By the end of the 1st Century AD there were dozens of Gospels written. Some Gospels held beliefs that there were 30 Gods, others worshipped Mary. This shows the wide diversity of belief within early Christianity. There was a more geographical diversity within early Christianity. The Christianity in Rome was different then the Christianity in Jerusalem for example.

The early christian church when connonizing the New Testament held certain criteria when deciding which ones were to be included and which ones were to be considered not authentic. There was a wide held belief that the number four (4) had religious and significant symbolic meaning. Since there were four corners of the earth, it was decided that there should be four Gospels. Other criteria such as the Gospels must tell of Jesus's death and resurrection were also considered. One does not need to be a genius to conclude that these debates were not without controversy. Essentially those who were in control and had the most power were the ones who decided.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed. As Elaine Pagels has said, "The victors rewrote history, their way." Orthodoxy was definitely defined by those with the most power. Those who were considered to be heretics were frequently persecuted and killed, and competing writings were destroyed.

Steven Avery

Hi Johnny, the reason I don't bother too much with this question or the 'dozens of gospels' and ' four corners of the earth' issues below, is that I feel they are based on faulty presuppositions combined with a lack of reality vis a vis the writings of the first centuries.

As an example, the four gospels were referenced as scripture literally a couple of hundred years before the 'canon lists' about which there is such concern, without any deep mystical corners overtones.

And with dozens of writers known and referencing each othe from about 90 AD to 350 AD, there was remarkably little attempt to include any books outside our 27 into the canon. The major issues were simply the full acceptance of books like 2 Peter and Revelation and Hebrews as scripture, and how in the east five books were not in the Peshitta. That's all folks. Offhand I don't think even Marcion, (snipping) out so much, had reference to other books. Nor did ebionites who were also known for (extracting).

Beyond our NT canon you can find one or two folks referencing the Shepherd of Hermas in a scriptural manner, after that the pickens are even slimens.

Also the books of the NT were being translated into other languages, as scripture, way before your focus on the late fourth century. Old Latin and Aramaic as two examples. What folks tend to not realize is that the political and spiritual structures were very diverse in realms like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch and Persia and Spain in those first four centuries. The NT was disseminated in multiple languages cultures and lands as the NT, as scripture, way before your late 4th century focus, which to one like myself was mostly simply a statement of what had been long accepted, and those councils focused on the acceptance of a couple of disputed books.

Now the dyed-in-the-wool mythicist might claim that all the early writers who thought otherwise about the NT books were destroyed, yada yada, all references to them in other writings expunged. The level of conspiracy manipulation, considering the wide geographical and political and spiritual diversity, becames impossible to maintain.

And for those of us who have a positive view of the NT, it is clear that the scriptures themselves belie many of these ideas. In the mid-first century, around 60 AD, Peter was referring to Paul's letters as scripture, likely as a collection, Paul was quoting Luke as scripture, just like the Tanach, and there were all sorts of additional connections between and among the NT authors and the gospels. Such as the one referenced by Peter Kirby, how Peter was discussing in his epistle the incident reported in the Gospel of John .

As an aside we know that James the brother of Jesus was executed by the Sannhendrin at this time as well, showing how earnestly the opponents of the Messiahship of Jesus were taking the movement, in synch with the history given us in the New Testament itself.

Honestly I could go on and on in this way, but I am just trying to give you the overview why the discussions here between folks who accept the Bible and those with theories of forgery, confusions, political canons and such are often simply talking totally around each other.

Folks like myself will often leave the playing field you mention to the skeptics and mythicsts to compare their NT theories, which to me are simply fanciful agenda conjectures embellished with unreality, and contradicted by the actual history of the first centuries.

Hope that helps.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

andrewcriddle

FWIW by 300 CE the limits of debate and disagreement about the NT canon were probably rather narrow.

I don't think that any book outside the 27 in our canon had any real chance of inclusion. And the only ones in any way doubtful were Hebrews James 2 Peter 2 and 3 John Jude and Revelation.

Andrew Criddle

fta

Could you elaborate on these supposed references from around 60 CE? 2 Peter 3:15-16 does refer to letters of Paul, but if 2nd Peter is a late forgery (as is widely believed) that doesn't count for much. Even 1st Peter isn't universally accepted as authentic. And where does Paul quote the Gospel of Luke?

Steven Avery

Thank you Andrew. I think the last five are the ones omitted from the eastern Peshitta, with Revelation having probably the most controversy overall. Hebrews particularly had the anonymous authorship question, and as a doctrinal blockbuster some take issue with its views, even today .. James I would have to check the concerns, whether they were doctrinal like Luther later (I doubt it) or what. 2 Peter is a fulcrum book, with its first person declarations as well as sanctioning Paul's epistles, I remember Eusebius discusses 2 Peter and Hebrews in some extra depth.

Note that the Pastorals, among the books most attacked by modern scholarship in terms of authorship, had no significant controversy.

Note also that there were no significant contenders for the NT canon, at any time or locale, outside the 27, even before all the fourth-century Councils.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

John A. Broussard

Maybe we can simplify things by going back to the OP.

Essentially, I believe it's asking, "What was the reason some books were included and others excluded?"

I realize no minutes were kept of the meetings, but there must be some indications from participants and/or contemporaries as to what rules, if any, were followed in making the final selections.

Thanks.

Steven Avery

.. then what I said above about references does not apply .. (and then I also could throw my NT away) .
Whatever the 'wide belief' in critical scholarship, and the debates among folks like Daniel Wallace (pretty good defense of 2 Peter) and Bruce Metzger (one of the attackers) .. when I studied the issues I was surprised how weak were the attacks on 2 Peter. I ended up discussing this some on one errancy or mysteries type forum, and maybe even some here.

As I have indicated, folks like myself have fundamental conceptual differences with the skeptic crew. I read 2 Peter and get the sense of Peter himself addressing me directly, relating his experiences at the Transfiguration, and his heart for Paul, and other neat aspects of the first century experience. And in the discussions I never heard a strong argument against 2 Peter as scripture, (authored by the apostle Peter) and ran the table looking. (In contrast, one or two of the arguments against the Pastorals were a bit more substantive).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Understood, John. And its not really my forte. There are a couple of good books about the Councils that may have some leads, one came out recently that covered about four, however I don't have it bookmarked.

And in one case at least it seems like there are extensive, untranslated from Latin, notes or minutes. Roger Pearse may be able to point you to the best sources :-)

Shalom,
Steven