Clouseau

[QUOTE=BALDUCCI;4522682]This occasion being the exception.

Roger Pearse

I think most people are perhaps unaware that this whole idea that "the bible was published" in the fourth century is heavy with many anachronisms. Unfortunately I think the OP was deliberately introducing confusion here by using the term.

There is confusion throughout this thread between the modern idea of publication, as if the bible was compiled at one time and published by printing; and the concept of a canon of texts, each originally circulated independently, now collected, and that collection receiving official approval.

I suggest that posters get clear in their mind which they are addressing. If the complaint is that the canon was not harmonised until the fourth century, one might remark that it isn't fully harmonised yet; in theory Catholics and Protestants disagree about the OT apocrypha. In practise no-one cares and it isn't an issue. Likewise the core NT of 4 gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter and 1 John is known to everyone from the mid-2nd century (judging from the fathers from the latter half of the century on), and accepted by all Christians.

But harmonising the last few had to await the legalisation of the church. All the books accepted were received on the basis of apostolic authorship. But since some were only known in certain geographical areas, until Christians could get together in councils, they could not very well sort this out. That had to await legality. Even then, no council could pronounce on such a question. So it sort of happened gradually.

The existence of fakes by outsiders was a spur to issue lists of genuine books (lists of fakes were too long to compose, although the Decretum Gelasianum has a valiant try), as we learn from canons (NOT the same as the 'canon' of scripture) of 4th century councils.

Incidentally I would advise anyone who has not seen MountainMan's posts before to ignore them all as the rest of us do. He's making up his 'facts'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clouseau

It isn't an issue now, so there is no reason to suppose that it was ever an issue. The NT canon must have been decided, with the possible exception of Revelation, almost as soon as its ink was dry. The fact that there was no one to declare it an official canon for the church is quite beside the point- it was used as such, by someone, when and where it was available.

It is very hard indeed to get those who claim to be Christians to agree to exclude anything of the NT canon, and probably even harder to get them to include anything presently excluded. There is a near cliff-edge perception of what is NT and what is not.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure. When the books were written, the apostles were still alive. Indeed even in the early 2nd century, Papias can prefer 'a living voice' to written accounts. Polycarp can deal with heretics in the mid 2nd century because he knew John personally (although Marcion was impervious to his rebuke, as heresiarchs tend to be). Irenaeus in the late 2nd century can rely on what Polycarp, taught him, when remonstrating with heretics.

But on the other hand, as time went by, churches had to rely more on the documents that the apostles who founded their churches left with them. These will always have had a special status, I agree -- as documents by the founders of movements always do to a movement. At one point people getting a letter from Paul perhaps considered it just like a letter. On the other hand, once he was gone, every letter was really rather important, I expect.

But I do not think that we know, or now have any information, as to when the shift occurs. Certainly Irenaeus writes as if the 4 gospels have always been the bedrock of teaching.

Quite right. This has always been so. But there was a fuzzy edge at one stage, simply through ignorance in some areas of perfectly good texts known only in others. Unknown texts were always treated with suspicion, even if orthodox. But Eusebius is very good on how a writer in the early 4th century thought about this, in his Church History (there's a good Penguin translation), I think book 3 or maybe 5.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;4522806]But that may be a heretical viewpoint.

But was Polycarp a Christian? We don't have John's word for that. Polycarp's claim is indicative of John's apostolic authority, and therefore for belief in the canonicity of his letters.

'I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.' 1 Thess 5:26-27 NIV

'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.' 2 Thess 2:15 NIV

'If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.' 2 Thess 3:14-15 NIV

'It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.' Phil 3:1 NIV

'After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.' Col 4:16 NIV

'I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.' 2 Thess 3:17 NIV

'Brothers, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written you only a short letter.' Heb 13:22 NIV

'I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.' 2 Cor 7:8-10 NIV

'I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing." Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.' 2 Cor 10:9-11 NIV

'James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.' James 1:1 NIV

'My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin.' 1 John 2:1 NIV

'Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.' Jude 3 NIV

'Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.' 2 Peter 3:1-2 NIV

'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. 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.' 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV

That is my point. What may have transpired later is not of much importance in this context.

Roger Pearse

Hang on: getting the apostolic message from the lips of St. Paul in person is heretical? Or St. John? Surely not!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but if Polycarp wasn't then there are no Christians on earth. Possibly you are confusing him with someone else.

You know that there was a point at which the NT did not exist. It had not been written in 34 AD. It got written over the next 30-50 years (John wrote his gospel in old age, and lived to 100 AD). So there was plainly a transition period.

That doesn't matter to anyone but those who went through it. The apostles ensured that what Christ taught, the disciples learned, and the apostles preached in the churches, was conveyed to appointed persons, and also written down (the two being a check on each other, in case of rogue bishops and fake gospels) and made definitive.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

xunzian

I'm not sure what you mean by 'publish'. I mean, there were a lot of copies of the Gospels floating around prior to Constantine and the creation of the official canon. It isn't like these people had a printing press! These things had to be written by hand. Christianity was also illegal, so it isn't like you could have a room full of scribes -- people had to write these things fairly clandestinely.

Also, the communities that were there were probably more concerned with preaching the message than writing it all down. Does it make more sense for a Christian to sit at home, alone, writing copies of the Bible that no one will probably ever read or to wander outside and start chit-chatting with people about this Jesus guy and see if they could win them over.

Once it became official, it makes sense that they could write it down -- they had the resources to do that! Also, Constantine had to distribute the official version, another reason to write it down. There wasn't that push prior to Constantine, since it was a fragmented community. Sure, there were elements of unity (otherwise the various councils wouldn't have been able to come to any sort of agreement), but the communication between the various flocks was probably fairly minimal.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;4522955]No, but that isn't what I referred to.

Why is that? Polycarp could have been as reliable as Diotrephes. Perhaps they were friends.

No. I don't think it make any sense to rely on the testimony of people with such very scant history, at a time when any religious history was unreliable.

Transition from what, to what? (Bear in mind the Scripture quoted.)

It was conveyed to you and to me in the New Testament, and in no other way.

Roger Pearse

Even before it was written? You don't believe this. But I really feel that you haven't engaged with what I wrote.

Incidentally I would be grateful if you do not edit my remarks in such a way as to make them state a view that I do not hold. Omitting the remainder of my sentence was just such an edit. I don't know who you imagine received the very first copies of the NT books, if not persons authorised by the apostles, for use in their churches. Who else did Paul write to? (NB: this is not an argument for ecclesiastical authority on my part; merely recognition of the special circumstances in which the books reached the churches).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The idea that Constantine is connected with the closure of the NT canon is a myth, I'm afraid.

All the best,

Roger Pearse